Neelam Sharma v. Amita Passan
Supreme Court of India, 21 August 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 913
A plaint pleading joint possession cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of ad valorem court fee; whether ad valorem or fixed court fee is payable must be decided on evidence.
Facts
The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they and defendants 1 and 2 were co-owners, with a 1/4th share each, of a house in Sector 11, Panchkula, that defendant No. 1 had got the house transferred by fraud and that the transfer was void, with separate possession of their shares and an injunction. Defendant No. 2 applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, contending that the plaintiffs, being neither owners nor in possession, had to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value. The Trial Court at Panchkula dismissed the application, relying on Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the revision, holding that since possession was prayed for, ad valorem court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870 was payable, and directed payment within two weeks failing which the plaint would stand rejected. The plaintiffs appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Could the plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaintiffs had not paid ad valorem court fee?
- At what stage should the question whether ad valorem or fixed court fee is payable be decided?
What the Court held
- On an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court considers only the averments in the plaint. Read as a whole, and particularly paragraph 4, the plaint pleaded that the plaintiffs resided in the suit property with the defendants and were in joint possession, so there was no ground to reject it at the threshold.
- Applying Suhrid Singh, under which a non-executant in possession seeking a declaration pays a fixed court fee while one not in possession who also seeks possession pays ad valorem fee, the Trial Court rightly refused to reject the plaint and the High Court erred.
- Whether ad valorem or fixed court fee is payable depends on possession, the prayer for it, the deed said to have been executed and related facts. These are issues to be decided on evidence, so the question of court fee was deferred to that stage.
- The High Court's order was set aside and the Trial Court's order upheld, modified so that the court fee question will be decided on the evidence led in the suit.
Why it matters
The judgment applies two settled rules together: that only the plaint is examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the distinction drawn in Suhrid Singh between court fee payable by a non-executant in possession and one out of possession. It holds that where the plaint pleads joint possession, a dispute about possession and the deed cannot be resolved against the plaintiff at the threshold, and the court fee question must await evidence.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“It is well-settled principle that while considering the prayer in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court has to consider the averments in the plaint only. Given this trite position of law, when in the instant case, the averments in the plaint are looked at in their entirety, more particularly, in paragraph 4 of the plaint quoted hereinabove, there is no gainsaying that it is stated by plaintiffs that after purchase of the suit property, along with defendants they resided therein, thereby pleading unequivocally that they were in joint possession.”
“The question of payment of court fee will have to be looked into in segregation, for, the same would depend upon not only the possession aspect or the prayer in that regard, but also the aspects relating to the sale deed claimed to have been executed and the other facts relevant thereto. They are the issues to be threshed out on evidence. Therefore, the question of payment of court fee, whether ad valorem or fixed court fee, could be addressed and considered only upon establishment of such germane facts upon leading of evidence in the suit.”
“Now, considering the suit averments and the suit prayers in the instant case, as also the proposition of law emanating from the decision in Suhrid Singh (supra), the Court is of the view that looking to the suit averments, the plaint is not liable to be rejected on the ground pleaded under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Trial Court was justified in law in refusing to reject the plaint. The High Court, however, fell in error in issuing the impugned directions.”
Provisions interpreted
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act, 1870
- Article 17(iii), Second Schedule, Court-fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Punjab and Haryana)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Neelam Sharma v. Amita Passan
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31540 of 2025)
- Decided
- 21 August 2026
- Bench
- S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment delivered by N.V. Anjaria, J.