IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision : 27.2.2012 [ENTITY] & others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondents No1. To 3. [ENTITY] J.(ORAL)
This plaintiffs' revision is directed against the order dated July 8th, 2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby, plaintiffs were directed to pay advalorum Court fee.
2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds mentioned in the head note of the plaint be declared illegal, null and void and are not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and to set aside the same. The plaintiffs also sought decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants form interfering into their possession over the suit.
3. In [PRECEDENT] decided on January 04, 2011 a Division Bench of this Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in [PRECEDENT] and a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT] (Civil Revision No.22 of 2009 decided on May 03rd, 2010), while commenting upon the provisions of the [ACT], 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 [CASE NUMBER] (2) 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 [SECTION] 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] 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 [SECTION] of the Act."
4. Indisputably, neither the plaintiffs are executant of the sale deeds which they sought to be annulled nor are they asking for the possession of the suit land because as per the averments they are already in possession of the same.
5. Above being the factual and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Judge fell in error in directing the plaintiffs to pay advalorum Court fee. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. Resultantly, it is held that the plaintiffs are not required to pay ad- valorum Court fee.
27.2.2012. ([ENTITY]) SN JUDGE