C.R. No. 4359 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4359 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.07.2010 Ajay Jain and another .... Petitioners Versus Gurdev Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioners 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner is assailing order dated 21.5.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Tohana (Fatehabad) whereby learned trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix court fee on the value of Rs. 1,00,00,000 as per the consideration fixed in the agreement dated 18.3.2004. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff filed suit for possession on the basis of agreement dated 18.3.2004 against defendants No. 1 to 8. Paragraphs No. 1 and 5 of the plaint reads as under:- 1. That the defendants No. 1 to 7 claiming themselves to the members of the Truck Operator Union, Tohana entered into an agreement dated 18.3.2004 to vacate the land for Rs. 1 crore measuring 12620 sq. yards, comprised in Khasra No. 383 & 384 of village Tohana and received Rs. 5,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses. C.R. No. 4359 of 2010 2 It was interalia agreed that Rs. 2,00,000/- will be received upto 25.3.2004 and the balance was to be paid upto 30.6.2004. Copy of the agreement is attached herewith which may be read as part of this plaint. 5. That the plaintiffs are lessee of defendant No. 9 and has been disposed from the land in question and now the members of the defendant No. 8 are in illegal and unauthorized possession. In the opinion of this Court ordinarily contentions made in the plaint are the sole basis for the purpose of valuation of the suit and payment of the court fee. In the present case plaintiff-petitioner himself has admitted in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint that defendants No. 1 to 7 agreed to vacate the land for Rs. 1 crore vide agreement dated 18.3.2004. Thereafter, plaintiff in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, admits that members of defendant No. 8 are in illegal and unauthorized possession over the land in dispute. Plaintiff is claiming possession from the defendants No. 1 to 7, who are members of defendant No. 8, on the basis of agreement dated 18.3.2004. As per Section 7 (x) of the Court Fee Act, court fee is to be paid as per the consideration fixed in the contract. In the case in hand consideration agreed in the agreement dated 18.3.2004 is Rs. 1 crore. Learned counsel for he petitioner argued that plaintiff is the lessee of defendant No. 9, hence valuation of the suit and Court Fee is to be made on the annual lease amount. I do not agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. There is no relationship between lessor-lessee between defendant No. 1 to 8 and plaintiff. As per the C.R. No. 4359 of 2010 3 plaint defendants No. 1 to 8 are in unauthorized and illegal possession and have agreed to vacate the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 1 crore. Hence, I find no illegality in the order impugned herein. The petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 16.07.2010 JUDGE reena