Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarita Devi vs Deepika And Another on 19 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CR-4880-2024
Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
****
SARITA DEVI
. . . . PETITIONER
Vs.
DEEPIKA AND ANOTHER
. . . . RESPONDENTS
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by the order dated
07.05.2024 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Jalandhar, whereby application moved by her under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
to reject the plaint of Civil Suit No.1551 of 2022 titled 'Deepika Vs. Sarita
Devi', was dismissed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel that as the
plaintiffs-respondents had challenged the legality and validity of the
transfer deed dated 10.06.2021, they were required to pay ad valorem Court
fee and so the application has been wrongly rejected.
3. Perusal of the plaint (Annexure P1) would reveal that plaintiffs
(respondents herein) are the legal heirs of Rohit Kumar. They sought
declaration that they had inherited the suit property after the death of Rohit
Kumar and that alleged transfer deed dated 10.06.2021 executed by Rohit
Kumar in favour of defendant-Sarita Devi is null and void and not binding
upon them. Plaintiffs-respondents did not seek any relief of possession.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151261
CR-4880-2024 2024: PHHC: 151261
4. Trial Court observed that as plaintiffs only sought relief of
declaration that transfer deed in question was not binding upon them and
that plaintiffs had not sought the relief of possession, so they were not
required to pay ad valorem Court fee.
5. This Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the
impugned order. The issue is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (Supra), which has been
followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh and others
(Supra). After referring to the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh
(Supra), it was held by Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh and
others (Supra): -
"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.
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."
6. In Bharat Bhushan Gupta case (Supra), it has been held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: -
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151261
CR-4880-2024 2024: PHHC: 151261
"9.1. It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint
which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary
corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation
merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation.
The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation
might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but,
ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily
with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed."
7. It is, thus, clear that simply because immoveable property is
the subject matter of litigation, that in itself is not decisive for valuation of
the suit. The market value of the property as involved in the litigation is
relevant, depending upon the nature of the claimed relief and the valuation
of the suit is to be decided primarily with reference to the claimed relief.
8. As plaintiffs are not executants of the impugned deed and
they did not seek relief of possession, so they were not required to pay ad-
valorem court fee. In view of this factual and legal position as above, this
Court finds no merit in the present petition and as such, the same is hereby
dismissed.
19.11.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Vivek JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
3 of 3
