Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sewa Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
123 CR-4715-2024
Date of Decision : 02.09.2024
Sewa Singh and Others .....Pe//oners
Vs.
State of Punjab and Others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate
for the pe oners.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Pe oners are plain ffs in civil suit bearing No. CS-160-2021
tled "Sewa Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others" pending
before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam. They are aggrieved by
the order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court,
whereby, in an applica on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC moved by
defendant No. 5 for rejec on of the plaint, they (pe oners) have been
directed to affix ad valorem Court fee.
2. Conten on of learned counsel is that as pe oners are not
executants of the impugned sale deeds, therefore they are not required to
pay the Court fee.
3. Submissions of learned counsel for the pe oners have been
considered.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114118
4. As per the plaint (Annexure P-1) and as observed by learned
trial Court in the impugned order, the plain ffs - pe oners not only
challenged the sale deed bearing Vasika No.3047 dated 08.11.2007; and
sale deed bearing Vasika No.136 dated 15.04.2008 along with consequent
muta ons, they further claimed relief of possession of the suit land
measuring 33 Kanal 3 Marlas.
5. Since the relief claimed by the plain ffs- pe oners includes
the relief of possession of the suit land, so learned trial Court did not
commit any illegality in asking them to pay the ad valorem Court fee.
Reliance can be placed upon "Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir
Singh and others", 2010 AIR (Supreme Court) 2807. It has been followed by
a Division Bench of this Court in "Tarsem Singh and others Vs. Vinod
Kumar and others", 2011 (31) RCR (Civil) 709, in which aAer referring to the
case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (Supra), it was held as under: -
"i) If the executant of a document wants a deed to be annulled, he is to
seek cancella on of the deed and to pay ad valorem Court fee on the con-
sidera on 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 declara on 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 Ar cle 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
declara on that the sale deed is invalid, but also a consequen al relief of
possession, he is to pay the ad-valorem Court fee as provided under Sec-
on 7(iv)(c) of the Act and such valua on in case of immovable property
shall not be less than the value of the property as calculated in the man-
ner provided for by Clause (v) of Sec on 7 of the Act.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114118
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 view of the aforesaid factual and legal posi on, it is clear
that case of the pe oners- plain ffs is covered under para (iii) of the
authority cited (supra) and as such, it is held that learned trial Court has
rightly ordered the plain ffs- pe oners to pay ad valorem Court fee .
As such, finding no merit in the pe on, same is hereby
dismissed.
( DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 02, 2024
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
