CR No.543 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.543 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Smt.Shanti Devi ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Krishna Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.H.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner having been directed to affix ad- valorem court fee on the sale consideration by the trial court on an application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”), vide order dated 17.11.2009, has approached this Court through the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed dated 4.3.2008 executed by Raman Devi, daughter of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 for Rs.1,80,000/- is null and void being based on fraud and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner. The respondents instead of filing written statement filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint for deficient court fee. The trial court vide impugned order dated 17.11.2009 allowed the said application directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the value 1 CR No.543 of 2010 of the sale deed in question within one month. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge in the suit is to the sale deed dated 4.3.2008 executed by Raman Devi, daughter of the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void being result of fraud played by her. It was argued that the plaintiff- petitioner is in possession of the residential house in respect of which alleged sale deed has been executed. Further, in para 4 of the plaint, it had been specifically pleaded that she never divided her residential house in which she is residing peacefully alongwith her elder daughter. Accordingly, it was urged that fixed court fee had been rightly affixed by the plaintiff- petitioner and the order of the trial court directing payment of ad-valorem court fee was legally unsustainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2807. 5. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh’s case (supra) 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 2 CR No.543 of 2010 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. 7. In the present case, the plaintiff-petitioner has sought cancellation of sale deed dated 4.3.2008 executed by her daughter Raman Devi in favour of defendant No.1. Further, the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that she alongwith her elder daughter are in possession of residential house in respect of which sale deed has been fraudulently executed by her daughter. In view of Suhrid Singh’s case (supra), the trial court was in error in directing the payment of ad-valorem court fee and the plaintiff-petitioner had rightly affixed fixed court fee. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the trial court is set aside. November 15, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3