Punjab & Haryana HC: Mandatory Injunction Suit Against Son and Daughter-in-Law Not Liable for Ad Valorem Court Fees
Case Name: Sunita v. Abhishek Kumar Yadav & Anr.
Date of Judgment: August 2, 2022
Citation: CR No. 3475 of 2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan
Held: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order directing the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fees on the market value of the suit property. It was held that the suit filed by the petitioner, who was the mother of the defendant and owner in possession of the house, was correctly framed as one for mandatory injunction and not for possession. Since the respondents were merely licensees whose licence had been terminated, the plaintiff was entitled to value the relief under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, rather than under Section 7(v) which applies to suits for possession. The trial court erred in equating the prayer for injunction with one for possession and in relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010), which was not applicable on the facts.
Summary: The petitioner, Sunita, filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking to oust her son and daughter-in-law from a portion of her house, claiming they were only licensees and their licence had been terminated. The defendants applied under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was essentially one for possession and required payment of court fees based on market value. The trial court accepted this plea and directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fees, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suhrid Singh. In revision, the petitioner contended that she remained the owner in possession of the house and the relief sought was not possession but an injunction against continued occupation by licensees. The High Court agreed, distinguishing between injunction suits and possession suits under the Court Fees Act. It found that the trial court had wrongly categorized the claim as one for possession and that the petitioner’s valuation of court fees was valid.
Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order dated 14.05.2019, holding that the petitioner was not required to pay ad valorem court fees on the suit property.