Sandip Chahal v. Balbir Singh & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No.1. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This defendant's revision is directed against the order dated October 3rd, 2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the plaintiff sought cancellation of sale deed dated June 12th, 2007 executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 so, he is required to pay ad-valorum court fee.

In Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others Civil Revision No.4753 of 2005 decided on January 04, 2011 a Division Bench of this Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2807 and a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dara Singh vs. Gurbachan Singh and others (Civil Revision No.22 of 2009 decided on May 03rd, 2010), while commenting upon the provisions of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, held as under:-

(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 Civil Revision No. 6054 of 2008 (2) 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 this case, the plaintiff is challenging the sale deed executed by himself so, his case falls under paragraph No.1 aforesaid and hence, he is required to pay ad-valorum Court fee.

This being so, revision is accepted. Order, under challenge is set aside. Consequently, the plaintiff is directed to pay the ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed within 60 days from today.

15.2.2012. SN (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE