C.R. No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: Dec. 22,2011 Ramesh and others................................... Petitioners Versus Smt. Suman Lata and others .................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.S.Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge is to the order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad (Annexure P-4) in application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of three sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void and cancellation of the same. The plaintiffs were directed to fix ad-valorem court fees on the market value of the suit property which is not less than `60 lacs or in the alternative the court fee on the sale consideration of the said sale C.R. No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] deeds. On reply to the application, the plaintiffs stated that they were co-sharers and in physical possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share of Bhoop Singh since 1951 till date. The defendants No. 2 to 8 had no legal right and authority to execute the impugned sale-deeds beyond their share. The plaintiffs being in possession are not bound by the illegal act of the 3rd party and no ad-valorem court fee was liable to be paid. The trial Court placing reliance on the judgment in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal 2000 (2) PLJ 268 held that the plaintiffs are liable to make the payment of ad- valorem court fee. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Others 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 564 and it has been held by the Supreme Court that where the non-executant of the sale-deed seeks annulment of deed without seeking the consequential relief of possession he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Narinder Kumar v. Naresh Kumar and others 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 298. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners are co-sharers and in possession of 1/5th share of the property of Bhoop Singh. They are only seeking cancellation of the sale- deeds of respondents No. 9 to 14. They have not sought any C.R. No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] consequential relief of possession as they are already in possession of the suit property. This Civil Revision is allowed. The order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad (Annexure P-4) is set aside. The respondents, if aggrieved, are at liberty to approach this Court. 22.12.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE