Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 Date of Decision: February 19, 2008 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Jai Pal & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned an order passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby he is directed to affix an ad valorem court fee. The petitioner claiming himself to be Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 2 : owner in possession of the suit land has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction in regard to a land measuring 8 kanals comprised in khewat No.8/9, khatoni No.19, Rect.No.46, killa No.14 (8-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Sunaria, Tehsil Thanesar and in regard to land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas comprised in khewat No.8, khatoni No.19, Rect. No.46, killa No.7/2 (1-7) situated in the same village. As per averments made in the suit, the defendants, who are cousins of the petitioner-plaintiff, approached him for leasing out the land mentioned above. The petitioner acceded to their request and thus the defendants took him to Babain for executing a lease deed. As per the petitioner, the defendants got some papers written and signed from him. Later he learnt that defendants had got sale deeds executed in their favour in respect of the suit land on different dates, i.e., 5.1.2001 and 7.9.2001. Even mutation No.992 was got entered in this regard by the defendants. Alleging that the sale deeds are illegal, null & void, ineffective, inoperative and nonest, the present suit is filed. Court fee of Rs.25/- only is affixed on the suit. The respondents have moved an application seeking direction to the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee as the petitioner has challenged the sale deeds dated 5.1.2001 and 7.9.2001. As seen from record, these sale deeds are for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.42,500/- respectively. The petitioner contested the prayer made in the application. The petitioner contends that he has only sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and from alienating the suit land which is in his possession. The Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 3 : petitioner thus pleads that no cancellation of sale deeds is sought and as such there is no requirement of paying ad valorem court fee on the plaint. The trial court has allowed the application and has directed the petitioner to affix the ad valorem court fee as per the sale consideration. One month time is granted to comply with the directions. The present revision is directed against the said order. Basing his submission on the pleadings, as afore- mentioned, the counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is for declaration without any claim for possession and as such ad valorem court fee is not payable. The counsel has referred to a case of Sita Wanti Versus Yash Pal Singh @ Jaspal Singh, 2007(1) SLJ 674 in support of his contention. In this case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of the land. The Court, thus, held that the plaintiff has not claimed possession of the suit land as a consequential relief and he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. There was no challenge to any sale deed which is a distinguishing feature from the instant case. Here apart from other relief, the petitioner is claiming a relief regarding the sale deeds, which would be needed to be set-aside for granting any effective relief to the petitioner. Reference is also made to the case of Krishna Devi and another Vs. Jaswant Singh, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 563. In Krishna Devi's case, plaintiff filed a suit challenging the sale deed and cla99999999iming decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from getting the sale deed registered. The plaintiff had only filed a suit for declaration without seeking any Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 4 : consequential relief of possession of the land which was in possession of the defendant. Under these circumstances, it is held that ad valorem court fee is not payable. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 has relied upon Himanshu versus Smt.Kailash Rani, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 582. The suit in this case was filed for declaration that the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in the said case was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Finding that there is a challenge to the validity of the sale deed, this court observed that the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fee as per the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed. Reference can also be made to the case of Ranjit Singh v. Balkar Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 573 where the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 24.7.1997 for Rs.1,62,000/- by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 was illegal and void and without consideration and legal necessity and based on fraud and not binding on the rights of plaintiff. The plaintiff in the case was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on a sale consideration of Rs.1,62,000/-. In the case of Ranjit Singh (supra), reliance is placed on the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 as also on the Full Bench decision of this court in case titled Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 PLJ 423 (FB)= AIR 1981 P&H 368. Some other judgments were also referred to and relied upon by this court in the said case. In case of Yuv Raj and others Vs. Balwant Singh and others, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 263, this court held that in a case for cancellation of a sale deed, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 5 : the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. In such cases, a declaration and consequential relief is ancillary. Again in Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur Versus Surjeet Singh and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 195, this court held that where cancellation of a sale deed is sought, person is required to pay an ad valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(vi)(c) of Court Fees Act. From the decisions as noted above, it can be noticed that for purpose of determining the question of court fee, the averments made in the plaint alone are required to be considered. View further is that where the validity of a sale deed is under challenge, the parties are required to pay ad valorem court fee as per sale consideration. The averments in the plaint seen in the light of this observation would clearly show that the plaintiff has sought decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deeds dated 5.1.2001 and 7.9.2001 in respect of a land mentioned in the plaint are illegal, null & void, ineffective, inoperative, nonest, fraudulent and not binding on the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff. Thus, the petitioner has not sought a relief of setting-aside of sale deeds as a consequential relief. This in fact is the main relief sought whereas decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land or alienating any part or portion of the same is by way of consequential relief. The averment in the plaint, thus, would show that main challenge is to the sale deeds. In the present case, the prayer made in the suit is already noticed above. The main prayer in the suit is for declaring the sale deeds as illegal, null & void etc. The sale deeds are for consideration, which are stated to be on account of fraud etc. Civil Revision No.6660 of 2005 : 6 : Considering the nature of prayer made in the suit, the petitioner in order to succeed has to seek cancellation of the sale deeds for different reasons as pleaded. It cannot be termed as a suit simpliciter for declaration. Accordingly, the petitioner would be required to pay ad valorem court fee in view of the law as noted above. The trial court has justifiably concluded that the petitioner is required to pay an ad valorem court fee. No infirmity is noted or pointed out in the view taken by the trial Court. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 19, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE