C.R.No.1868 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1868 of 2009 Date of Decision : 22.10.2009 Arjun Singh ...Petitioner Versus Amar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 57. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 16.3.2009, whereby the plaintiff has been called upon to affix ad valorem Court fee. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. The plaintiff also claims that the sale deeds executed by the persons recorded as owners in the revenue record in favour of the other defendants does not affect the rights of the plaintiff, who has become owner by efflux of time. The plaintiff has also claimed that the sale deeds executed between 4.1.2008 till 8.2.2008 are wrong, illegal, null & void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff. The said suit filed by the plaintiff by affixing the Court fee of Rs.50/- on the plaint after assessing the value of the suit at Rs.400/-. An application was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.R.No.1868 of 2009 2 Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on account of lack of proper affixation of the Court fee. Leaned trial Court vide the order impugned in the revision petition found that the plaintiff has challenged the sale deeds executed by the defendants inter se. Therefore, the Court fee affixed is less. The plaintiff was directed to affix the proper Court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suit of the plaintiff is simpliciter suit for declaration and the relief for cancellation of sale deeds is only ancillary. Once the plaintiff is declared to be owner, the sale deeds have necessarily to be ignored, therefore, the Court fee has been properly affixed as the substantive relief of the plaintiff is for declaration only. On the other hand, it is argued that the cancellation of the sale deeds is not ancillary, but it is in fact a substantive relief claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot get the declaration of ownership unless he succeeds in avoiding the sale deeds executed by the defendants inter se. It is the case, where the sale deeds have been executed prior to the filing of the suit and unless the sale deeds are avoided, the plaintiff cannot seek declaration that he has become owner of the suit property by afflux of time. The suit of the plaintiff's incorporate two reliefs. First, is of declaration arising out of adverse possession of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the owners recorded in the revenue record, have executed sale deeds in favour of the other defendants in the suit. Such sale deeds have been executed prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, to claim the substantive relief, the plaintiff is to avoid to the sale deeds. Such relief is not C.R.No.1868 of 2009 3 surplusage. It is a substantive relief. Therefore, the plaintiff has rightly found liable to affix ad valorem Court fee on the amount of sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deeds. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. However, the petitioner is granted two months' time to make up the deficiency in the Court fee. Dismissed. 22.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE