Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir And Another vs Chetan Yadav on 4 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154379
CR-1029-2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:154379
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
137 2023:PHHC:154379
CR-1029-2021(O&M)
Date of decision: 04.12.2023
SATBIR AND ANOTHER ..Petitioner
Versus
CHETAN YADAV ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs. They have
filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that the sale deed executed by
them on 07.06.2017, should be declared to have been obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation. On an application filed by the defendant under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the trial Court has directed the
plaintiffs to affix proper ad valorem Court fee on the plaint. The correctness
of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.
2. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
petitioners at length and with her able assistance perused the paperbook.
3. On 30.11.2023, the following order was passed:-
"As per the office report, notice issued to the respondent
through his counsel has been received back served,
however, he remains unrepresented.
The learned counsel representing the petitioners
submits that the ad-valorem court fee is not payable in
view of Section 7(v)(c) of the Courts Fees Act, 1870. He
submits that there is an amendment made by the Haryana
Government in the aforesaid section relating to the
agricultural land.
The attention of the learned counsel representing
the petitioners has been drawn to the Full Bench
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154379
CR-1029-2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:154379
Judgment passed by this Court in Niranjan Kaur v.
Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127 and Suhrid Singh alias
Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 12
SCC 112.
He prays for a short accommodation.
Adjourned to 04.12.2023.
To be listed in the urgent list."
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioners has been once
again heard. She submits that the case is governed be Section 7(iv)(c) of the
Court Fees Act, 1870, and therefore, the ad valorem Court fee is not payable.
5. She relies upon the judgment passed in CR-5124-2015, titled as
"Dharamdutt @ Harpal Vs. Geeta Devi, decided on 19.12.2015 and Smt.
Beena and others Vs. Rajinder Kumar and others, 2006(1) PLJ 96.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the petitioners.
7. It may be noted here that in a situation, where the plaintiffs are
the executants of an instrument, they are required to seek annulment of the
aforesaid instruments by filing a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963. This distinction was explained in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool
Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 112. Even a Full Bench
of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127, has also
explained the aforesaid distinction. The executant of an instrument cannot
merely claim a declaration without seeking the annulment/cancellation of the
aforesaid instrument. As per the judgments passed by the Supreme Court as
well as Full Bench of this Court, the ad valorem Court fee is payable once
the executant wants annulment of an instrument.
8. This Court has carefully read the judgment passed in
Dharamdutt @ Harpal's case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154379
CR-1029-2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:154379
filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration challenging the release deed
executed by him in favour of his daughter. In that context, the Court held
that such suit would be governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act,
1870.
9. This Court has also carefully read the judgment passed in Smt.
Beena's case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the defendant had sold the
property, which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a suit for
declaration that such sale deeds were null and void because the land was
ancestral. Thus, in the aforesaid case, the plaintiffs were not the executants
of the instruments. Hence, the judgments passed in Dharamdutt @ Harpal's
case (Supra) as well as Smt. Beena's case (supra), are not applicable.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is
made out.
11. Dismissed accordingly.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
December 04th, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154379
3 of 3
