A Review of the Settled Legal Principles Regarding Court Fees in Partition and Possession Suits

When it comes to property disputes in a lawsuit, one of the most important factors to consider is how much court fees need to be paid. Court court fees are often based upon the value of the property or the rights in dispute.

This article examines the settled legal principles regarding the payment of court fees in a suit for possession and partition. It looks at several court cases which have established that in such suits, court fees should be determined based on the market value of the property and not the initial cost of purchase

For any lawsuit involving property, the amount of court fee to be paid is an important factor to consider. Court fees are based upon the value of the property or the rights in dispute, and often the amount paid will determine the level of consideration that is allotted to the case in question. In a suit for possession and partition, court fees should be determined based on the market value of the property in question and not the initial cost of purchase.

This principle of law has been established in several court cases. In the case of Suresh Kapoor v. Shashi Krishan Lal Khanna (2015), the Delhi High Court affirmed that in a possession and partition suit, if the plaintiff pleads that they are the co-owner of the properties sought to be partitioned, and claims joint possession, only fixed court fees should be payable under Article 17 (vi) of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870. In the case of Saroj Salkan v. Capt. Sanjeev Singh & Ors. (2008), the Delhi High Court stated that in a partition suit, the court fees to be paid if joint possession is pleaded by the plaintiff would be the fixed court fees under the same article, even if the plaintiff is not in actual possession. The same has been established by courts in other High Courts as well.

In the case of Rajinder Kumar Rattan Petitioner v. Shri Kant Rattan & Others (2012), the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed that in a suit for partition, the court fees should be computed on the market value of the immovable property in question as on the date of filing the suit.

In the case of M/S. Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sami & Ors. (2010), the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees on the market value of his share in the suit property. In the case of Kuldeep Kaur Petitioner v. Smt. Surjit Kaur and Others (2014), it was established that if non-executant of a document seeks a declaration and is not in possession, they are liable to pay the ad valorem court fees, but to the extent of their share only. In the case of Kailash Devi Petitioner v. D.A.V. Senior Secondary School (2013), it was held that the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court fees on the market value of their share in the suit property.

In conclusion, it is settled law now that in Partition and Possession Suits the plaintiff or defendant must pay court fees on the market value of the property or the shares over which possession or partiton is being sought. This has been decided by several high courts in the country and has become a settled governing principle in such cases.

-Kunal Sinha

[Kunal Sinha is a qualified lawyer based in New Delhi, India with expertise in the fields of civil litigation, commercial litigation and commercial contracts. He has had the privilege of acting for his clients in the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi and District Courts in Delhi/Gurgaon. He can be contacted via email (chambers.sinha@gmail.com) or by phone (+91 8287409593).]