Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harshdeep Singh vs Gurdeep Kaur And Another on 4 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154290
CR-4819-2022 2023:PHHC:154290
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
143
CR-4819-2022
Date of decision: 04.12.2023
HARSHDEEP SINGH ..Petitioner
Versus
GURDEEP KAUR AND ANR. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The plaintiff assails the correctness of the order passed by the
trial Court on 17.09.2022. The trial Court has directed the plaintiff to affix
ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the property
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the
effect that the property was ancestral coparcenary property and his grand-
father Sh. Balwant Singh had no right to sell the same. He sought relief of
possession along with the decree of declaration that various sale deeds
executed by Sh. Balwant Singh are not binding on his rights and the trial
Court held that the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deeds, however,
he is seeking decree of declaration that the aforesaid sale deeds are null and
void. The Court concluded that the plaintiff is required to affix ad valorem
Court fee as he has also sought consequential relief of possession.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154290
CR-4819-2022 2023:PHHC:154290
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that in
view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias
Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the non-
executant is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he is not expected
to file a suit for annulment of the instrument in terms of Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. He further submits that in view of the amendment
to Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable to State of Punjab,
the Court fee is required to be calculated as per the valuation fixed by the
State with respect to the agricultural land.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent while supporting the impugned order, submits that the plaintiff is
required to affix ad valorem Court fee.
7. In fact, Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan
Kaur 1982 PLR 127, held that if the executant of an instrument prays for its
annulment, such suit shall be governed by Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963. However, a non-executant is not required to seek the annulment
of the instrument. This view was approved by the Supreme Court in Suhrid
Singh alias Sardool Singh's case (supra).
8. Qua the relief of possession of land, house and garden, Section
7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, provides for fixing ad valorem Court fee in
accordance with the value of the subject matter. There is an amendment in
Section 7(v) by State of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi & Union
Territory of Chandigarh, which reads as under:-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154290
CR-4819-2022 2023:PHHC:154290
Punjab, H.P., Delhi & U.T. of As in Haryana
Chandigarh
where the subject-matter is [(a) where the subject-matter
land, and-- (a) where the land is land other than land
forms an entire estate, or a situated within municipal
definite share of an estate, limits or Abadi deh whether
paying annual revenue to under cultivation or not,
Government, according to the market
or forms part of such an estate value thereof which shall be
and is recorded in the deemed to be--
Collector's register as (i) in the case of land which
separately assessed with such is irrigated by perennial
revenue, canal, sixty rupees per acre;
and such revenue is (ii) in the case of land which
permanently settled-- ten is irrigated by non-perennial
times the revenue so payable: canal or by well, fifty rupees
per act; and
(b) where the land forms an (iii) in the case of land which
entire estate, or a definite is Barani, Sailab, Bhud,
share of an estate, paying Thur sem, Banjar or of like
annual revenue to nature, thirty rupees per
Government, or forms part of acre; and
such estate and is recorded as
aforesaid;
and such revenue is settled,
but not permanently-- five
times the revenue so payable.
(b) where the subject-matter
is house, garden, or land
situated within municipal
limits or Abadi Deh whether
under cultivation or non,
according to its market
value;]
9. Thus, for seeking relief of possession, the value of subject
matter of the suit is required to be calculated in accordance with the
aforesaid amendment.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is set
aside. The trial Court is requested to calculate the amount of Court fee on the
basis of the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
11. With these observation, the revision petition is disposed of.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154290
CR-4819-2022 2023:PHHC:154290
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:154290
4 of 4
