Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Iqbal Singh vs Sarabjit Kaur on 8 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064143
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M) -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Order:08.05.2024
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
CR No.4269 of 2022 (O&M)
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
CR No.4282 of 2022 (O&M)
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
Narinder Iqbal Singh
.Petitioner
Versus
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064143
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M) -
Sarabjit Kaur ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Akashdeep Miglani, Advocate
for Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in all cases)
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate and
Mr. Saurabh Savara, Advocate
for the respondent (in all cases)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. The dispute in these six connected revision petitions, is with
regard to liability of the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee on the value
stated in the registered transfer deeds which are sought to be annulled by
filing as many as six suits.
2. Sh. Narinder Iqbal Singh, the petitioner, in all these revision
petitions transferred the property in favour of his family members by
registered instruments. In all these instruments, the value of the transferred
property was specified, however, fixed stamp duty was paid in view of the
exemption notification issued by the Government enabling the family
members to transfer the property inter-se without payment of stamp duty
equivalent to the amount payable on the sale deed. Subsequently, he filed six
suits seeking annulment of these transfer deeds on the ground that he was
misrepresented.
3. On an application, filed by the defendant, the trial court has
directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee. The correctness of such
identical orders is challenged in these six revision petitions.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
5. After hearing the learned counsel representing the parties on
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064143
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M) -
26.04.2024, the following order was passed:-
"The petitioner herein is the executant of the transfer
deed in favour of his son, who subsequently died. He has
filed a suit for declaration that the transfer deed is
required to be annulled. Learned counsel representing
the petitioner contends that in the transfer deed the
amount of sale consideration has not been mentioned and
transfer was in between the family members, hence, no ad
valorem court fee is payable.
This court has considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel representing the petitioner.
The attention of the learned counsel representing
the petitioner is drawn to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court
Fees Act, 1870. He prays for an adjournment to examine
the same, before assisting the Court.
List on 08.05.2024, in the urgent list.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of
the other connected cases."
5. Today the matter has again been heard.
6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir
Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 112 has laid down that the court fee is to
be calculated on the amount of consideration specified in the transfer deed.
He submits that in this case, the amount of consideration is NIL because the
transfer was in between the family members, hence, the trial court has erred
in directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the values specified
in the document.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent
submits that in each of the transfer deeds, the value has been specified and
the petitioner is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the aforesaid
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064143
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M) -
amount.
8. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
9. Though, attention of the court has not been drawn to any
separate provision for payment of court fee on a suit for
cancellation/annulment of an instrument, however, a Full Bench of this court
in Niranjan Kaur vs Nirbigan Kaur, AIR, 1981 P&H 368, has held that
such suit will be governed by Section 7(iv)(c) and Article-1, Schedule-1 of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1870 Act')
10. In Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court was examining the liability to pay the ad valorem court fee in the
context of a sale deed. In that case, it was found that the plaintiff is not the
executant of the document. Hence, the court has held that the ad valorem
court fee is not payable on the amount of consideration specified in the
instrument because the plaintiff is only required to file the suit for
declaration that such sale deed is not binding on his rights. In that judgment
itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an instrument is sought to
be annulled by the executant then ad valorem court fee on the amount of
consideration is required to be paid.
11. Taking clue from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full
Bench as well as by the Supreme Court, it becomes evident that if a suit for
cancellation of document or annulment is filed, the suit will be governed by
Article-I, Schedule-I of the 1870 Act, which provides for payment of ad
valorem court fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute. The tentative
value of the subject matter of the dispute is specified in the instrument itself.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064143
CR No.3926 of 2022 (O&M) -
12. Hence, there is no error in the impugned orders of the trial
Court. Consequently, all the revision petitions are dismissed.
13. At this stage, the learned counsel representing the petitioner(s)
prays that he may be permitted to make good the deficiency in court fee
within a period of one month, which is not opposed by the learned counsel
representing the respondent.
14. Hence, if the petitioner makes good the deficiency in the Court
fee, within a period of one month, from today, the same shall be deemed to
have been made good within the prescribed time and the trial court will
proceed to decide the case on merits.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 08, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
5 of 5
