CR No.4282 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.4282 of 2006 Date of decision March 3, 2009 Sunil @ Sunil Kumar and another ....... Petitioners Versus Lal Singh @ Lalian ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rao D. S. Nirban, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The defendant who challenged the mode of valuation by the plaintiff had his objections rejected by the Court below and hence a cause for revision to this Court. 2. The suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is the owner in possession of 1/6th share of the land and for a further relief that the gift deed registered on 26.5.2003 for the land situate at Village Dongra Ahir in favour of the defendant was against law and based on fraud and misrepresentation and null and void. Admittedly the plaintiff was a party to the gift deed and relief of declaration was sought on the ground that the defendant was trying to usurp possession and claim title of the property under the gift deed. In effect the plaintiff was seeking for a cancellation of the document to which he was a party. The Court CR No.4282 of 2006 2 below has observed that the challenge had not been to a sale deed but it was only with reference to gift deed and there being no relief for possession no ad valorem court fee is payable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to decision of this Court in Zora Singh and others Vs. Kehar Singh and others 1981(1) RLR that a suit for permanent injunction alleging a gift deed to be null and void was held to be required to be valued as one for cancellation of a document and provision of Article 1 Schedule 1 was attracted and not Section 7 Clause IV (b) and the Court Fees Act. Another decision of the same issue was rendered in Nand Kaur and others Vs. Gurdev Kaur and others Volume 59 PLR 500 where it was held that for a suit for declaration by a donor challenging a gift which he had made, the assessment of Court fee shall be under Article 1 Schedule 1 and ad valorem court fee was payable under the said Article. The impugned decision rendered by the Court below conflicts with the decisions cited above and the reasoning that a cancellation would be necessary only in case of sale deed and not with reference to gift deed is wholly erroneous. 4. The order of the Court below is set aside and the plaintiff shall be called upon to pay ad valorem court fee under relevant provisions of Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court fee Act within the time stipulated by the Court below and if the Court fee is not paid as stipulated, the Court may take appropriate action and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. 5. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 3, 2009 archana