Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu vs Usha Devi And Anr on 1 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
1
CR-776 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-776 of 2018
Reserved on: 27.07.2023
Pronounced on: 01.09.2023
Sonu
......Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Usha Devi and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the
plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugning the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby application filed by
defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed
and petitioner has been directed to affix the ad valorem court fee on the
sale consideration of the sale deed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of present revision
petition are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that
he is absolute owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 4
kanals 16 marlas situated at MaujaTajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad
and defendants or any other person have got no right title or interest
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
CR-776 of 2018
qua the same in any manner and that the impugned sale deed bearing
document No.3660 dated 14.10.2013 registered in the office of Sub
Registrar, Tigaon, Faridabad, qua the suit property is wrong, illegal,
null, void, ab initio, false and frivolous document and same is not
binding upon the plaintiff in any manner with consequential relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in
peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Respondent-
defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for
rejection of the plaint on the ground that ad valorem court fee was
required to be paid by the plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff filed reply to the
said application and in the said application vide impugned order dated
18.12.2017, petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to pay the ad valorem
court fee on the sale consideration of the above sale deed. Hence,
present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
Court has erred in law in not taking into consideration that the suit land
is an agricultural land (chahi land) and court fee is payable as per the
provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 as amended in
the State of Haryana and not on ad valorem basis. He further submitted
that suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent
injunction was filed on the ground that cheque issued in lieu of sale
deed dated 14.10.2013 had been dishonoured, therefore, cancellation of
the same did not amount to payment of consideration and, in fact, the
sale deed was without consideration and this fact has not been taken
into consideration by the Court below. Learned counsel for the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
CR-776 of 2018
petitioner has further relied upon 2018 (2) Law Herald 1042, Annpreet
Kaur Khera vs. Akhtiar Singh and another, wherein this Court has
made following observations:
"In the considered opinion of this Court, such direction
issued by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous. The
dispute in the present case is with regard to the
agriculture land measuring 51 kanals and 6 marlas and
some construction over 18 marlas of land in the shape of
house and 7 shops constructed separately. Learned
counsel submits that as per the State amendment in
Section 7 (IV) in case of agriculture land, the Court fee is
payable on the basis of 10 time of the revenue payable and
not on the value of the property or the sale deed.
However, he admits that the Court fee shall be payable on
the value of the property described under heading 'B' and
'C' in the plaint i.e. house and 7 shops."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the impugned order is legal and valid. He submitted
that the trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee
and has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir
Singh @ others, which is relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court
in 2011 (31) RCR (Civil) 709, Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod
Kumar and others. The operative part of the judgment passed by the
Division Bench reads as under:
"In Suhrid Singh's case (supra), the plaintiff challenged
the alienation on the ground that the sale deed executed by
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
CR-776 of 2018
his father, Rajinder Singh, in respect of the ancestral
property is illegal and not binding on him and that as a
coparcener, the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession
thereof. In the said suit, the plaintiff had affixed a fixed
Court fee on the relief of declaration; joint possession and
for permanent injunction, but the learned trial Court
returned a finding that ad valorem Court fee is payable on
the sale consideration as the plaintiff has sought
cancellation of the sale deed in the aforesaid case. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the following effect:-
"7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation
of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration
that the deeds do not bind the co-parcenery" and
for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not
the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the Court
fee was computable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the
Act. The trial Court and the High Court were
therefore, not justified in holding that the effect of
the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds
or that therefore, Court fee had to be paid on the
sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds."
In view of the said example given an example in para No.
6 of the judgment and the finding recorded in para No. 7,
we hold as follows:-
i) If the executant of a document wants a deed to be
annulled, he is to seek cancellation of the deed and
to pay ad valorem Court fee on the consideration
stated in the said sale deed.
ii) But if a non-executant seeks annulment of deed
i.e. when he is not party to the document, he is to
seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, non-est,
illegal or that it is not binding upon him. In that
eventuality, he is to pay the fixed Court fee as per
Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
CR-776 of 2018
iii) But if the non-executant is not in possession and
he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is
invalid, but also a consequential relief of
possession, he is to pay the ad valorem Court fee as
provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act and such
valuation in case of immovable property shall not
be less than the value of the property as calculated
in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section
7 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the issue leading to payment of the Court fee is
decided in terms of the parameters laid down above. The
single bench judgments rendered prior to the Supreme
Court judgment mentioned above run counter to the
aforesaid view and thus overruled. The Reference is
answered accordingly. The Single Bench judgments
rendered, so far as they run counter to the aforesaid view,
are thus overruled."
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering
the fact that in view of the amendment made by the State of Haryana in
Section 7(IV) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, it is found that in case of
agricultural land, the court fee is payable on the basis of 10 times of the
revenue payable and not on the value of the property or the sale deed of
the suit property.
6. Since the land in dispute is admittedly is an agricultural
land, the cheque given by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff towards sale
consideration was dishonoured and he has set up a case that he is in
possession of the property and has not made any prayer for grant of
decree of possession, this revision petition deserved to be allowed.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
CR-776 of 2018
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside.
8. It is directed that the petitioner will pay the court fee as
per amended Section 7(IV) of the Court Fee Act regarding agricultural
land i.e. fee, payable on the basis of 10 times of the revenue payable
and not on the value of the property or the sale deed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
01.09.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115031
6 of 6
