t 1 59 1 v1 Civil Revision No 3756 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABAND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision Noe 3756 of 2009 w11 Date of deCISIOIP 7vle esUYl 0 Gian Singhand others Petitioners Versus 1 L NirmalSinghand others Iespondents 0 0 I CORAM HONBLE MS JUSTICERITU BAHRI C5 Present Mr PadanlJain Advocate I for the petitioners Z Mr RajbirWasu Advocate for respondent Nos 1 82 Cl I RITU BAHRI J Z This civil rcvision petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution CJO of Indiaread with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or short tlle Z CPCI is for settingaside order dated 04052009 ln nexure P49 passedby Civil JudgeSenior Division SultanpurLodhi District Kapurthalawherebyan application under order 7 Rule 11 of thc Code scckingrejcctionof the plaint was declined The plaintiffshavefiled a stlit for declarationthat theyare JOlllt owners in possesston in equalsharesof the Iand described at pointA to K in the head note of the plain t and further declilratiotl that sale deed dated 2801 008 registeredat No 2579 dated 29Ol 2008 and executed by defendant No l as allegedattorneyof plaintiffsiiI favour of defendant Nos 1 Anita 2012.12.22 15: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 3 4 6 Civil Revision No 3756 of 2009 2m 2 and 3 realbrothersofdefendant No11 and defcndant No4 O son of defendant No 41with respectto the Iandsand Gcncral Powcr of Attorney dated 1922007 registered Oll behalf of plaintiffsitl favour of defendant No 1 are illegalvoid outcome of fraud The plaintiffshavefurther filed a suit for permanentinjunctionrestraining the defendants from interfering into the possessionof the plaintiffsover thc suit Iand and also from 0 C alienating in any manner I C5 Therefore defendants soughtrcjcctionof the plainton the I groundthat proper Court fee has not been affixed by the plaintiffsSince Z the plaintiffwas not seekingthe possession but was claiming himselfto be in possession of thc suit Iand It was directed that plaintiffis not to pay ad I t valorem Court fee Thc trial Court vide impugnedorder dated 04052009 Z had held that plaintiffsare not Iiableto pay ad valorcm Court fee on the m sale considerationin thc saledeed dated 28Ol 2008 va Z Honble tlle SupremeCourt in thc case of Suhrid Singh e Sardool Singh VSe Randhir Singh and others AlR 2010 SC 2807 has examinedthis issueand has held that if a noneexecutant is in possession and suesfor declarationthat the deed is null or voicl and does not bind him or his share he has to merelypay fixed court4ee of Rs 1950 under Article 17 iiil of Second Schedule of the Act On the other hand if B a non 1 executant is not in possession and he seeksnot onlya declaration that the saledeed is invalid but also the relief of possession he hasto payan ad valorem Court4ee as providcdunder Section 70vl cl provides 0 Anita 2012.12.22 15: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 aJ Civil Revision Noe 3756 of 2009 e3 that in suitsfor declaratory decree with consequential relicf the Court fee shall be com putedaccording to the amount at which thc relief soughtIS valued in the plaint The aforesaidview is discernible from Para 6 of the above mentionedjudgmentwhich readsas under1 1 C 6 Wherethe executant of o deedwonts it to be onnulled he 0 has to seek cancellation of the deed But if a noneexecutant seeks 0 annulmentof a deed he has to seek a declaration that the deed IS I C5 involid or nonest or illegolor that it is not bindingon himThe I differencebetween a prayer for canccllotion and declcrotion in Z regardto a decd of CO11be broughtout by the followingillustrotion relotingto and two brothers A rt executes a sale deed in fovourof C A wants to I avoid the sale A has to sue for cancellation of the deed On the t other hond if B who is not the executont of the deed wonts to Z ovoid it he has to sue for a declarction that the dced executedby m A is involidlvoid ond noneestl illegolond he is not bound by it In m7 Z essence both moy be suingto havethc deedset osideor decloredOs nonebinding But theformis diHerentond court feeis olso diHerentIf Om A the executont of the deed seeksconcellotionof the deed he has to poy odIolorem court feeon the considerationstoted in the sale deed in the presentcase plaintiffhas soughtrelief of declarationfor settingaside the sale deed that theyare joinedowners in possession and that the sale deed is in possession of the defendants is illegaland result of fraud and with a consequential relief of pcrtnarlcntinjunctionrestraining the defendantsfrom interferingin the possessionTheyhave not soughtthe relief of possession as theyclaim to be In jointpossessionTheyare not to Anita 2012.12.22 15: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 e1 e hV Civil Revision Noe 3756 of 2009 4e paythe ad valorem Court fee as per law Iaiddown by Honble the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singhe Sardool Singhcasc lpral A DivisionBench of this Court iil CR No 4753of 2005titled as Tarsem Singh and others VS Vinod Kuma r a nd others decided on 1 1 07201 1 has followed the judgmentof Honble the SupremeCourt and 0 has come to the conclusion that if a noneexecutant seeksannulment ofa 0 I deed when he is not a partyto the document he is to seek a declaration C5 I that deed is invalid norest illegalor that it is not bindingupon him In that Z eventualityhe is to pay the fixed Court fee as per Article 17 0iil of the SecondScheduleof the Act C I In view of the aforementionedfacts and applyingthe ratio of Z aforesaidjudgmentsorder dated 04052009 passedby trial Court requires Ol no interference 7 civil revisionis dismissed Z ll 8c 0 RlTU BAHRI I GArora JUDGE OPAAA401 1 Iut 4 rh Anita 2012.12.22 15: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document