IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER]. Date of Decision: 15.2.2012. [ENTITY] & others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] & others Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the respondents.
[ENTITY].J (ORAL) This plaintiffs' revision is directed against the order dated February 19th, 2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby, plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem court fee.
2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession in equal share to the extent of share of 194 Kanals 15 marlas of land detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiffs also challenged judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Courts.
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] 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. In this case, neither the plaintiffs are challenging sale deeds nor claiming possession of land. Hence, they are not required to pay ad-valorum Court fee.
5. In view of this, the plaintiffs - petitioners were not required to pay ad valorem court fee, but to pay court fee as per [SECTION] of the [ACT].
6. This being so, revision is accepted. Order, under challenge is set aside. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not required to pay ad valorem court fee as directed by the Trial Court.
15.2.2012. ([ENTITY]) SN JUDGE