C.R.No.1174 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1174 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Smt.Bimlesh and others ... Petitioners Versus Baldev Krishan and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: None. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The application filed by the defendant-petitioners for affixing ad-valorem court fee of Rs.6,62,300/- having been declined by the trial court on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) vide order dated 5.12.2008, they have approached this court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff challenged the sale deed dated 13.11.2006 executed by Dharam Chand and sale deeds dated 2.3.2007 and 14.3.2007 regarding the suit land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code on 28.8.2008 for affixing the court fee of Rs.6,32,300/-. The trial court having dismissed the said application, the defendant-petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 3. After going through the averments made in the petition 1 C.R.No.1174 of 2009 and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 had laid down the following principles:- i) Where the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed; ii) Where the non-executant, who is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share shall be required to affix fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act; iii) Where the non-executant who is not in possession seeks declaration that the deed is invalid and also claim relief of possession, is required to affix ad-valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) ( c) of the Act. Under the Proviso attached thereto, such valuation in case of property shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act. 5. In the present case, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed which had been executed by defendant No.1 by impersonating the father of the plaintiff is based on fraud and liable to be set aside. It was further observed that as per averments in the plaint, the father of the plaintiff and their predecessor in interest never knew about the sale deed and a criminal case had been registered against defendant No.1 under Sections 2 C.R.No.1174 of 2009 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC in which he was in custody. The trial court also recorded that the plaintiff under the circumstances had sought declaration of title and declaring of sale deed to be null and void would be consequential in nature. The trial court after noticing that the impugned sale deed was not only fraud on the real owners but was fraud on the vendees as well and had held the fixed court fee affixed to be proper and dismissed the application. 6. No illegality or perversity is noticed in the order of the trial court warranting interference and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3