Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Balbir Singh Mehta ......petitioner Versus Shyam Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vipul Jindal, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Pawan Bansal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate, for respondents No.18 to 23. Mr.M.S.Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.12. Ms.Rinky Jha, Advocate, for respondents No. 45 and 46. Mr.Y.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.53 and L.Rs of respondent No.51. Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 25, 28, 29, 32, 39, 40, 42 to 44 and 47. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Balbir Singh Mehta had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff along with defendants No.2 to 11 are owners in joint possession of ½ share owned and possessed by late Sh. Partap Singh son of Moti Ram in land measuring 30 Bigha 13 Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2006 (O&M) 2 Biswa comprised in Khasra No.800/488 (20-7), 802/771 (0-14), 803/489 (4-5), 490 (0-17), 795/770(2-17), 801/771 (1-8), 804/489(0- 5), 794/770 (0-4) Khewat/Khatauni No.313/61 to 563 according to jamabandi for the year 1956-57 situated within the revenue estate of Mauza Yamuna Nagar erstwhile Abdullahpur and the mutation of Succession No.36 of late Partap Singh in favour of Shyam Singh defendant No.1 alone and all the alienations made thereafter by defendant No.1 are not only null and void but are an act of fraud and misrepresentation played with active assistance and connivance of the then registration staff and thus nonest in the eye of law, which does or could not affect the right interest and the share of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 11 herein and are also not binding in any manner whatsoever; and consequently for actual physical possession of ½ share of the property detailed above, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any further transfer and/or changing the existing position by construction or reconstruction of any nature and any type whatsoever till the final adjudication of the suit as per evidence under Order VII Rule 1 CPC. Vide the impugned order dated 7.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Jagadhri, the petitioner was directed to affix ad valorem court fee as per market value of the suit property. Hence the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2006 (O&M) 3 petitioner had merely filed a suit for declaration for joint possession of the property inherited by him from his father Partap Singh along with other legal heirs. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was not required to affix ad valorem court fee. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ram Avtar v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal 2007(2) Law Hearald (P&H) 1583; Kanwal Singh vs. Smt.Bhoti and others 2007 (2) LAR 620; Pawan Kumar and another v. Banwari and others 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 572; Prince Minor through his mother and natural guardian Smt.Rekha v. Suresh Kumar and others 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 430; Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh 1990 PLJ 234; Ram Singh and others v. Labh Singh and others 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 208; Bhagwan Kaur and others v. Amrik Singh and others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 531; Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar and others 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 1 and Raj Kumar and others v. Shri Dadu Dayal Trust and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 173 . Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was required to affix ad valorem court fee. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No.1830 of 2007 (Smt.Prem Kanta vs. Ms.Poonam Sharma and others) decided on 17.11.2008. After going through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, the legal position that emerges is that the Court in deciding the question of court fee should look into the Civil Revision No. 6941 of 2006 (O&M) 4 allegations made in the plaint to find out what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. Thus, in each case, the Court has to find out the real relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Where the main relief of that the cancellation of the deed, and the declaration if any, is only a surplusage, the case would not be covered under Section 7 (iv) (c )of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short 'the Act'). Because in a suit under that Clause, the main relief is that on a declaration and the consequential relief is just ancilliary. Thus, if the main relief claimed in the suit is not a mere declaration but the main relief is for possession or for cancellation of the sale deed then the court fee has to be paid accordingly. In the present case, a perusal of the plaint reveals that the main relief claimed by the plaintiff is for possession and hence, the court fee has to be paid as per the provisions of Section 7 (v) of the Act, which deals with the affixation of court fee in a suit for possession. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff was required to affix the court fee in terms of Section 7 (v) of the Act. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 27, 2009 anita