KULWANT SINGH v. NIRMAL KAUR AND OTHERS
Case Details
‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 280 CR-6134-2022 Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 KULWANT SINGH . . . .APPELLANT Vs. NIRMAL KAUR AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner. Mr. R.K Arya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner herein is the plain(cid:29)ff before the trial Court in Civil Suit (cid:29)tled ‘Kulwant Singh Vs. Nirmal Kaur and Others’. He is aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been directed to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the considera(cid:29)on amount as men(cid:29)oned in the impugned sale deed, while allowing an applica(cid:29)on moved by respondent-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner-plain(cid:29)ff is not executant of the impugned sale deed dated 03.01.2013, which was allegedly executed by Shingara Singh, the father of the plain(cid:29)ff, in favour of defendant No.1 Nirmal Kaur. Learned counsel further contends that pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner did not seek exclusive possession of the suit property and rather, the relief claimed by him is that a8er se9ng aside the impugned sale deed, a decree for joint possession in equal share be passed, as plain(cid:29)ff as well as defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Shingara Singh. 3. On the other hand, the conten(cid:29)on of ld. counsel for the respondent is that since decree for possession is also sought, so plain(cid:29)ff is liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee. PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6134-2022 4. 5. Heard. It is not in dispute that pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner-plain(cid:29)ff is not executant of the impugned sale deed dated 03.01.2013. Apart from seeking the relief of se9ng aside the said sale deed, to which he is not the executant, pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner prayed for joint possession of the suit property in equal share along with defendant Nos. 2 to 7 out of share of deceased Shingara Singh. 6. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, while considering the import of Sec(cid:29)on 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [for short ‘the Act’], it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court “6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancella(cid:29)on of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declara(cid:29)on that the deed is invalid, or nonest, or il- legal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancella(cid:29)on and declara(cid:29)on in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustra(cid:29)on rela(cid:29)ng 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 cancella(cid:29)on 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 declara(cid:29)on that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and no- nest/ 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 cancella- (cid:29)on of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the considera(cid:29)on stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declara(cid:29)on 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 Ar(cid:29)cle 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declara(cid:29)on that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequen(cid:29)al relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Sec(cid:29)on 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Sec(cid:29)on 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequen(cid:29)al relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 3 CR-6134-2022 sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequen(cid:29)al relief is with reference to any property, such valua(cid:29)on shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Sec(cid:29)on 7. 7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancella(cid:29)on of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declara(cid:29)on that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plain(cid:29)ff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under sec(cid:29)on 7(iv) (c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not jus(cid:29)fied in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancella(cid:29)on of the sale deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale considera(cid:29)on men(cid:29)oned in the sale deeds.” 7. It is evident from the Para No.7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced above that if prayer is for declara(cid:29)on that deed does not bind the co-parcenary and for joint possession and the plain(cid:29)ff is not executant of the sale deed, then Court fee is to be computed under Sec(cid:29)on 7(iv)(c) of the Act. 8. In the light of the aforesaid legal posi(cid:29)on, the present pe(cid:29)(cid:29)on is
Decision
hereby disposed of by modifying the impugned order and by holding that the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner-plain(cid:29)ff is required to pay the Court fee as per Sec(cid:29)on 7(iv) (c) of the Act. 22.04.2025 Pry Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes Yes (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 3