For many people fighting against a forged will (wasiyat), filing a declaration suit in court feels like the only way to seek justice. But one big hurdle often comes up—the District Court may flag your case as “defectively filed” for not paying sufficient court fees.
Why This Happens
Under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, the court fee for a declaration suit depends on whether you also ask for possession, injunction, or other reliefs. If you only want a declaration, a small fixed fee applies. But if you ask for possession or injunction, the law may require you to pay a fee based on the property’s market value—sometimes running into lakhs of rupees.
What You Can Do
Don’t get discouraged if the registry raises an objection. You can request that the matter be placed before the District Judge and argue that your suit should be treated as a declaration suit without heavy ad-valorem fees.
Declaration Suit Against Forged Will Can Be Filed Without Paying Court Fees: CASE COMPILATION
Before the District Judge you have to quote the following case laws so as to overcome the hefty court fee in a declaration suit.
Difference Between Cancellation & Declaration
The Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010 has observed that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A’ and `B’ — two brothers. `A’ executes a sale deed in favour of `C’. Subsequently `A’ wants to avoid the sale. `A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B’, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A’ is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A’, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B’, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B’, a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
Therefore, this ratio decedendi can be used by the declarant of the Will also.
The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shantilal Agarwal vs Smt. Ramabai And Ors. on 5 July, 1973 has held that In AIR 1927 Lah 890 the plaintiff definitely allegd that the will had not been executed by the deceased and was a forgery and he further asked for a perpetual injunction to be issued directing the defendant to stop interference with his property and to remove his locks from the house and shops in question. It may be pointed out that a prayer for an injunction was an additional relief sought by the plaintiff and it has been held in many cases that a prayer for injunction amounts to a consequential relief. This case is therefore, in my opinion, quite distinguishable on facts.
In AIR 1934 Oudh 505 it was observed that where the allegation in the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff virtually seeks the cancellation of a deed of wakf and the will executed by the deceased, in order that he may recover the property as the reversionary heir of the deceased, the plaintiff, in substance, asks for the cancellation of the deed of “wakf” and the will and therefore his plaint is virtually for a declaration with a consequential relief and falls under Section 7 (4) (c) This decision turns upon the construction of the plaint. It was found that the plaint was deliberately cast in such a form as to evade payment of court-fee, but was nevertheless a plaint for a declaration of title together with a consequential relief. In the circumstances of that case the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had virtually sought the cancellation of a deed of wakf and the will executed by the late Janki Sahu in order that he may recover the property in the suit as the reversionary heir of Janki Sahu.
Rerefence may now be made to Athmaram v. Saraswathi. AIR 1936 Mad 344. The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming certain properties as belonging to the Joint family alleging that he was entitled to the properties by survivorship and that a will left by his coparcener bequeathing the said properties to coparcener’s widow and daughter was a forgery. It was held that the claim for possession could not be held to be consequential upon the declaration that the will was a forgery and invalid, and further that the claim to possession of the joint family properties by survivorship was unaffected by the will and therefore the claim with regard to the properties must be held to be for declaration only and must be valued under Article 17A. Schedule 2, Court-fees Act.
In Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswamia Pillai. AIR 1929 Mad 396 the plaintiff in his suit alleged that a will put forward by the defendant was a forgery and prayed in his plaint (1) that the will may be declared to be forgery: (21 that it may be cancelled; and (3) that, the order of the Sub-Registrar registering the will may also be cancelled. It was held that in regard to Court-fee payable, the provision applicable to the case is not Section 7 (iv) A or Section 7 (iv) (c) but Schedule 2 17-A (1) because the suit must be treated as one for declaration without consequential relief.
Conclusion
You can present these case laws and get your ‘insufficient court fee’ defect removed and get your declaration suit admitted.
