Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Devi vs Jasbir Malik And Anr on 2 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099278
CR-4313-2024 (O&M) 1
129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-4313-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.08.2024
SMT. SUNITA DEVI ... Petitioner
VS.
JASBIR MALIK AND ANR ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present : Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. This revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenges the order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed
by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Panipat, by which, an
application (Annexure P-3) for rejection of plaint on account of
deficiency in payment of Court fee, filed by the petitioner-defendant
has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondents/plaintiffs, instituted a suit against the petitioner
(Annexure P-2), seeking a declaration and permanent injunction,
claiming to be the rightful owner in possession of the suit land, as
detailed in the head note of the plaint, with further relief to restrain
the petitioner/defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession
of the suit land.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099278
3. Learned counsel contends that petitioner/defendant filed an
application (Annexure P-3) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short 'CPC'), seeking
a directions to the respondents/plaintiffs to affix ad valorem Court
fee on the market value of the suit property and to make up the
deficiency, failing compliance, the plaint should be rejected.
4. Learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court, after
considering the response (Annexure P-4) of the
respondents/plaintiffs and hearing the parties, dismissed the
application vide order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) in arbitrary
manner. It is stated by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court
failed to note that suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration is
indeed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed in favor of the
petitioner. Therefore, it falls under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court
Fees Act, 1870 (for short 'the Act') and the respondents are liable to
pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit land. The
learned counsel contends that the order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure
P-1) is unsustainable in the eyes of law as it is in violation of, and
contrary to, the settled provisions of law regarding the payment of
court fee. Therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned
order and direct the respondents to pay the ad valorem Court fee.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the paper book.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099278
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Suhrid Singh @ Sardool
Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors, 2010 AIR (Supreme Court)
2807, while dealing with the issue of payment of Court fee observed
as under: -
"Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he
has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks
annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is
invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The
difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard
to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following
illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' - two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed
in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue
for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the
executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration
that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is
not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside
or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also
different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed,
he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the
sale deed. If 'B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a
declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his
share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article
17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a non-executant, is not in
possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is
invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an
ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099278
Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the
amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso
thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with
consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation
shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner
provided for by clause (v) of Section 7."
7. As evident from the plain reading of the plaint, the
respondents/plaintiffs are not seeking any annulment/cancellation of
the sale deed registered in the favour of the petitioner/defendant.
They are also not seeking the possession of the suit land as they
claim their possession over the suit land. Keeping in view the
averments of the plaint, the provisions of law and ratio of the
judgment ibid, the case of the respondents/plaintiffs does not fall in
category of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act.
8. The learned trial Court after considering the averments
contained in the plaint and the substantive relief claimed by the
respondents/plaintiffs, rightly concluded that fixed court fee is liable
on the plaint and not the ad valorem court fee.
9. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, it is held that the
learned trial Court has rightly exercise the jurisdiction that vested in
it and the order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity,
infirmity or perversity so as to warrant any intervention by this
Court.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099278
10. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
02.08.2024 (RITU TAGORE)
smriti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
