Civil Revision No.598 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.598 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:-14.10.2011 Rajbir Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Rajbala & Others. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate for the Respondent. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Panipat whereby he has been directed to affix ad valorem Court fees within 15 days of the receipt of the order. Facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff Rajbir Singh has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed bearing vasika no.1491 dated 12.12.2007 executed by defendant nos.2 to 5 in favour of defendant no.1(Raj Bala) is illegal, null and void and a result of fraud and misrepresentation with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is claimed that the suit land is subject to alvion delivion i.e. under the control of river Jamuna and is in possession of petitioner/plaintiff since more than 25 years. Due to the nature of the land the person in possession is presumed to be the real owner Civil Revision No.598 of 2010(O&M) #2# of the land. It however, appears that a notification was issued by the Govt. of Haryana in the year 1991 notifying that the certain lands including the suit land vested in the Gram Panchayat being shamlat Deh of village Mauja Rana Majra and the same was allotted to one Noor Deen father of defendant nos.2 to 5 vide order dated 25.04.2007. It further appears that on the death of Noor Deen, defendant nos.2 to 5 succeeded his interest and sold the suit land to defendant no.1 Raj Bala, hence the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Respondent/Defendant Raj Bala moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the plea that the requisite court fee was not affixed since the primary relief claimed is for setting aside the sale deed vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 the application was allowed and the learned trial Court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to affix Court fee on the value of the sale deed, hence the present revision petition. At the time of arguments both the Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered on 03.05.2010 in Civil Revision No.22 of 2009 titled as Dara Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Others wherein relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 564 it was held that where relief of declaration for setting aside a sale deed not executed by the plaintiff is sought without further seeking possession no ad valorem Court fee is required to be affixed. In view of the agreed stand, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 is set aside. No order as to cost. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE October 14, 2011 Vinay