Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Krishan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harpal Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present revision petition, order dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, has been assailed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the basis of sale consideration reflected in the impugned sale deed within a period of 15 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case defendant No.5 to the suit namely Smt. Kamlesh had executed a sale deed in favour of Harpal Singh and Om Pal Singh, defendants No.8 and 9, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed is wrong, illegal, invalid and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 2 Furthermore, the following prayer of consequential relief was also made:- “14...With consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the same illegally and forcibly and from alienating the suit land in any manner, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, with costs. Any other relief deemed proper by the Hon'ble Court may also please be granted. In the alternative, if the defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of possession of the land mentioned above in this para of the plaint...” Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dara Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and Others (Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 (O&M) decided on 3.5.2010. The Division Bench has relied upon paragraph No. 6 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others 2010(2) Recent Civil Reports 564. It will be apposite here to reproduce paragraph No. 6 of the above said judgment:- “6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 3 invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad- valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 4 as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7...” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff was non-executant to the sale deed and was not seeking possession as a consequential relief but permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff being in possession will not be dispossessed from the suit land. He further submits that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh's case (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has urged that in the prayer clause it has been stated that in case the plaintiff is dispossessed then he should be put into possession. He further submits that the prayer clause has been crafted in such a way to avoid payment of ad valorem Court fee. The parties are in agreement that till today no prayer has been made that the plaintiff has been dispossessed. Thus, the plaintiff has only sought a relief that if the sale deed is held not binding upon him, an injunction be granted then he be Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009 5 not dispossessed. That being so, the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh's case (supra). Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P4) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The plaintiff is not liable to pay the Court fee ad valorem on the sale consideration as reflected in the impugned sale deed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 26, 2011 “DK”