Mr. Vikas Khatri, Mr. Manas Khatri, Ms. Seema Khatri Ms. Khushboo Pathak, Advs v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS

Judgment

1. Through this first appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the Appellant assails the Order dated 26.08.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Single Judge in Interlocutory Application No. 4032/2025 in Civil Suit (OS) No. 203/2024. The moot question that arises here is whether ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property is payable in a suit for declaration bundled with the relief of injunction. Signature Not Verified

Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:48:41 FAO(OS) 106/2025 Page 1 of 14 FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal has been noted hereinafter:

2.1 Sh. Manohar Lal/Appellant has filed a Suit for Declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as „DDA‟] and legal representatives of his brothers, late Sh. Bansi Lal and Sh. Mehar Chand, with regards to the property bearing No. A-62, Ashok Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110052 [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”]. The Appellant claims to be a co-owner to the extent of his 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property.

2.2 According to the Appellant, the suit property was purchased by the Appellant along with his brothers through an auction organised by the DDA on 18.06.1967 for the highest bid of Rs.25,500/-, on a leasehold basis in joint ownership. The Appellant, along with his two brothers, jointly took possession of the suit property, for which a possession slip dated 15.10.1971 was duly issued by the DDA. It is stated that the Appellant and his family have been enjoying uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the Ground Floor [hereinafter referred to as “GF”] of the suit property since the year

2.3 Thereafter, the DDA issued a Letter of Stamping of Perpetual Lease Deed dated 20.12.1971 in favour of the Appellant and his two brothers. The Appellant alleges, late Sh. Bansi Lal, in connivance with officials of DDA and late Sh. Mehar Chand, forged and fabricated Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:48:41 FAO(OS) 106/2025 Page 2 of 14 documents and manually obliterated the name of the Appellant using a pen, besides late Sh. Bansi Lal and late Sh. Mehar Chand, in the Perpetual Lease deed dated 04.09.1972.

2.4 It is stated that the Appellant only came to know about this when he received a Notice dated 06.10.2023 from the legal heirs of Smt. Surinder Chojar/Respondent No.8 [daughter of late Sh. Bansi Lal] and was called upon him to vacate the GF of the suit property, alleging the Appellant to be a licensee when, in fact, he is the lawful and bona fide owner to the extent of 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property.

2.5 The suit was listed before the Joint Registrar, subject to office objection regarding valuation and court fees paid. On 18.09.2024, the Joint Registrar directed the Appellant to deposit the deficient court fee, if any. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the application bearing IA No. 4032/2025 in CS (OS) No. 203/2024 seeking clarifications as to whether the court fee is payable ad valorem or a fixed fee, considering the reliefs sought in the suit.

2.6 It was the case of the Appellant that no consequential relief has been sought as he has been in uninterrupted possession of the suit property since the year 1972, and therefore, the case of the Appellant squarely falls under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Article 17(vi) of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and is liable to pay only the fixed court fee.

2.7 The learned Single judge, vide the impugned Order dated

26.08.2025, observed that the suit would prima facie fall within the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:28.10.2025 14:48:41 FAO(OS) 106/2025 Page 3 of 14 ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and disposed of the application with a direction to the Appellant to deposit the deficient court fee within a period of six weeks. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has advanced the following reasons as to why the suit should fall within Section 7(iv)(c) read with Article 17(vi) of the Schedule II of the Act:

3.1 Appellant is one of the co-owners of the suit property along with his brothers and has been in uninterrupted possession on the GF of the suit property since the year 1972.

3.2 The suit is a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without consequential relief of possession, and therefore, the value must be at Rs.20/- and Rs.13/-. Thus, fixed fee is payable and not be ad valorem.

3.3 Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Surhid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others1, Sarabjit Prakash v. Udyajit Prakash2 and Neelavathi & Ors. vs. N. Nataranjan & Ors.3.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the present suit is not a simpliciter suit for declaration; rather, it is a suit for declaration along with consequential reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction. The Respondents have placed