Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Chander Arora vs Raj Kumar on 6 September, 2022
128
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2289 of 2020
Date of Decision: 06.09.2022
Harish Chander Arora
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Raj Kumar
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
for the respondent.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The dispute is with regard to liability to pay ad valorem court
fee on the amount recited in the sale deed dated 06.08.2018. The application,
filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed by the
trial Court while relying upon the judgment passed in Rambai v. Kapoori
and Another 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 376 and Tarun Kumar and Others v.
Pankaj Kapoor and Others 2016(5) RCR (Civil) 296.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that in
view of the judgment passed in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v.
Randhir Singh AIR 2010 2807 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127, the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judges could not be relied upon.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent contends that in view of the judgment relied upon by the trial
1 of 3
Court, no ad valorem court fee is payable.
4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff being the executant of the
sale deed is required to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed under
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the
1963 Act"). There is a fundamental difference between a suit filed for
annulment/cancellation of a document and a mere suit for declaration. The
suit for declaration is filed under Section 34 of the 1963 Act. If an executant
wants to avoid a document, he is required to file a suit for its annulment.
The Full Bench in Niranjan Kaur's case (supra), framed the question in
para 1, which is extracted as under:-
"Where the plaintiff, who is a party to a document relating to
the agricultural land, files a suit for its cancellation or for
declaring it voidable against him, is such a suit governed by
section 7(iv)(c) or Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act".
5. While answering, the Full Court held that even if the plaintiff
claims that a fraud has been played, still ad valorem court fee is payable
because such suit is governed by Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees
Act, 1880. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while deciding the Suhrid Singh
alias Sardool Singh's case (supra), once again, held that the executant of a
document is required to file a suit for its annulment and hence, ad valorem
court fee is payable on the sale consideration.
6. This Court has carefully read the judgments passed in Rambai's
case (supra) and Tarun Kumar's case (supra). In both the judgments, the
Court proceeded to decide the matter in the peculiar facts of the respective
cases. In Tarun Kumar's case (supra), the Court noticed that both the
2 of 3
cheques reflecting the payment of sale consideration were ultimately
dishonoured. In Rambai's case (supra), the Court noticed that the petitioner
was more than 100 years old pardanashin lady.
7. Hence, the aforesaid judgments are given in the peculiar facts
of the respective cases and do not lay down any ratio decidendi governing
such cases in general.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present revision
petition is allowed. The order, under challenge, is set aside. The
respondent/plaintiff is granted one month's time to deposit the ad valorem
court fee on the amount of sale consideration from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
September 06, 2022
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
