Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 07.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Smt. Nihar Kana Maity (in place of the deceased Pulin Behari Maity) and others; Opposite parties: Badal Maity and another.
  • Original suit: Title Suit No. 88 of 2017 (renumbered from Title Suit No. 2 of 2014) filed by the predecessor Pulin Behari Maity seeking declaration of title, declaration that the March 22 2013 deed was fraudulent, permanent injunction, costs and other reliefs. The suit valuation was stated as ₹7,83,497/‑ for declaration of title and injunction.
  • The lower court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur) on 02 May 2022 (Order No. 43) directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fees based on the valuation of the ‘Kha’ schedule deed and ordered rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the CPC for non‑payment.
  • Petitioners filed revisional application CO 1980 of 2022 on 17 Sept 2026, seeking a rule to show cause why Order 43 should not be set aside and an interim stay of its operation.
  • Plaintiffs argued the suit sought only a declaration that the deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and an injunction; they did not seek cancellation of the deed, therefore the fee should be computed under Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, not on the deed’s consideration.
  • Defendants contended that the deed was executed by the plaintiff and that the declaration sought effectively amounted to cancellation, requiring fee based on the deed’s valuation, relying on Supreme Court cases Agra Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David and Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh.
  • The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions (Chapter III, Section 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act) and noted that Section 7(iv)(c) does not contain the proviso present in Punjab law; therefore the West Bengal provision does not compel fee based on deed value when the suit is for declaration simpliciter.
  • Precedent analysis: Coordinate Bench judgments in Sri Umapada Jati and Paresh Chandra Nath held that where the suit is for declaration of title and injunction, and no specific prayer for deed cancellation is made, the plaintiff is not required to pay fee on the deed’s consideration.
  • The Court distinguished Suhrid Singh and Anil David on the ground that those cases dealt with other state court‑fee statutes and are not pari materia.
  • Applying the above, the Court concluded that the present suit falls under Section 7(iv)(b) – fee based on the amount at which relief is valued in the plaint – and no relief justifies computation under subsections (v) or (vi).

Final Outcome

  • Order No. 43 dated 02 May 2022 is set aside.
  • No ad valorem court fee order is imposed on the plaintiffs.
  • The trial court is directed to proceed with Title Suit No. 88 of 2017 in accordance with law.
  • Parties may obtain a certified copy of the judgment on priority, subject to formalities.

Topics: Court Fees, Title Suit