When a relief is only incidental to the relief of partition, no separate court fees needs to be paid on the incidental relief

In the case of Shampa Ghosh v Alok Kumar Dey (2022/DHC/005053) decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 23.11.2022.

FACTS:

The present suit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking reliefs of partitions, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the property bearing no. B-127, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property). Subsequently, two applications were filed by Defendant No. 1 and 3 respectively under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The primary contentions of the Defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 was that the suit fails to disclose any cause of action and the same was not valued correctly, therefore appropriate court fees has not been paid by the Plaintiff.

HELD:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the aspect of court fees observed that the prayers made in the present suit reflects that the main relief claimed in the present suit is that of a partition and permanent injunction. The Plaintiff has valued the suit property at Rs. 2,63,00,000/- which is the market value of the suit property as per the circle rate. Since the Plaintiff is claiming 1/5^th of the suit property, the valuation of the same comes to Rs. 52,60,000/- and accordingly court fees of Rs. 53,681/- was duly paid by the Plaintiff.

Further for the purpose of permanent injunction a separate court fees of Rs. 200/- has been paid. It is further observed that the prayer of possession is not an independent relief and is only a consequential relief to the relief of partition.

The Hon’ble Court while referring to the judgment of Chandra Bhogi and Anr. v. Guddappa Bhandary, (AIR 1953 Mad 846) observed that where the relief of declaration or cancellation is incidental to the relief of partition and therefore, no separate court fees is payable. The Court further held that if a relief relates to a distinct subject matter it should be separately valued, and in case a relief is only incidental to the relief of partition, no separate court fees needs to be paid.

In the present case, the relief of the possession is only incidental to the main relief of partition. Therefore, no separate court fees is payable on the same. The Court further dismissed both the applications as no ground was made under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint.