CR No.4405 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4405 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.4.2010 Usha Devi @ Usha Rani .... Petitioner. Versus Hari Singh alias Harish Chander and others .....Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Khungar, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.5.2009 by which the plaintiff has been directed to affix ad valorem Court fee. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the suit, the petitioner has made the following prayer : “Hence, it is respectfully prayed that decree for possession by way of partition of 1/6th share of House and shop bounded as East-15' street, West-15', Main Bazar, North-130 ft shop Vijay Kumar and House of Vijay Kumar, South-shop of Guli Hazure di and House of Makhan, Bearing MC No.B-VI 106 Railway Road, Nasi Basti Wali Street Goniana Mandi. As the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 inherited from Sant Lal son of Tulsi Ram in equal share and for declaration that the sale deed No.8730 dated 24.1.2008 regarding 39.1/2 sq.yards out of the above said property executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.7 to 9 and sale deed No.8729 dated 24.1.2008 CR No.4405 of 2009 (O&M) -2- in favour of defendant No.6 is illegal, null and void and have no binding force upon the rights of the plaintiff and further the entries in the Municipal record in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void and required to be corrected. As joint of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from further alienating any portion of the property bounded as East-15' Street, West 15' Main Bazar, North-130 ft shop Vijay Kumar & House of Vijay Kumar, South shop of Guli Hazure di and House of Makhan Bearing MC No.B-VI 106 Railway Road, Nasi Basti Wali Street Goniana Mandi, illegally and forcibly on basis of wrong entries in Municipal record or anywise and restraining defendant No.10 from making entry is house tax assessment on basis of aforesaid null and void sale deed No.8729, 9730 dated 24.1.2008 illegally and forcibly with costs may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit be also awarded.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Vs. Gurdev Kaur and others 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 958 to contend that where there is no specific relief to set aside the sale deeds has been sought by the petitioner and only a direction is sought that the sale deed in question be not affect his right and title as he is not the vendor, the petitioner is not liable to affix ad valorem Court fee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon two judgments of this Court in the case of Yuv Raj and others Vs. Balwant Singh and others 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 263 and Himanshu Vs. Smt.Kailash Rani 2005(1) CCC 337 (P&H) to contend that where the suit has been filed for the purpose of cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration CR No.4405 of 2009 (O&M) -3- mentioned in the sale deed. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the prayer made is innocuous because the plaintiff has prayed that the sale deed executed by her would not bind her interest and for that matter, entries made in the municipal record are illegal, void and required to be corrected. There is no prayer made that the sale deed be set aside and therefore, I am in full agreement with the law laid down by this Court in Mohinder Singh Vs. Gurdev Kaur and others in which it has been held that where the plaintiff has not sought a declaration that the sale deed is illegal and should be set aside and has rather sought only a direction that the sale deed may not affect his right and title in the property in question, the plaintiff is not required to affix ad valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 25.5.2009 is set aside. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 21.4.2010 JUDGE Meenu