The single-judge bench of Justice Alka Sarin of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs Amandeep Singh and Another held that once a person is an executant of the deed and seeks cancellation of the deed he is bound in law to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit seeking a declaration that he is the sole owner of the suit property and that all subsequent sale deeds and mutations are invalid and void ab initio. Additionally, a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents was sought in the decree. The defendant-respondents are his sons, while the plaintiff-petitioner is the father. It is asserted that the plaintiff-petitioner was the only owner of the suit property and used his own money to buy it in the defendants' names as respondents, with no sale consideration being paid by them.
Thereafter, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint by the defendants-respondents inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner had failed to affix the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property or on the value of the suit property as mentioned in the sale deeds.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff- Petitioner had contended that the defendant-respondents are only the trustees of the suit property. Additionally, the sale deeds never intended to actually transfer any right, title, or interest in the suit property in favor of the defendant-respondents; as a result, an ad valorem court fee was not required. The plaintiff-petitioner had also disinherited defendant-respondent No. 1 and revoked the license to retain possession.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondents had submitted that in the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner has also requested possession of the suit property. He has skillfully structured the plaint to ask for a ruling for an obligatory injunction ordering the defendant-respondents to give the plaintiff-petitioner vacant possession of the suit property.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgment titled Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. [2010(12) SCC 112]. The hon’ble court held that the plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the sale deeds as the father of the defendant-respondents. The sale deeds bear his signatures and are registered documents. That being so, there is no escaping from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra). The argument raised by counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that he is only seeking a decree of declaration and ad-valorem court fee is not to be affixed, is wholly untenable in law.
It has clearly been held in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed, and when a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that it is invalid and non-est and once a person is an executant of the deed and seeks cancellation of the deed he is bound in law to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. It is only a person, who is a non-executant and is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void, who would not have to affix ad Valorem court fee and in case a person being a non-executant is not in possession, who seeks possession, in that case, he would have to affix ad-valorem court fee.
CASE NAME- Surinder Singh Vs Amandeep Singh and Another
CORUM- Justice Alka Sarin
CITATION- CR No.1459 of 2018
DATE- 20.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :