Civil Revision No. 3901 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3901 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.07.2011 Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Paramjeet Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Paramjeet Kaur daughter of Harmail Singh – respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the alleged transfer deed bearing No. 1651 dated 06.07.2009 in respect of the land in dispute is null, void, inoperative, not binding on her rights. She is still owner of the land in dispute and for a decree for possession, directing Bhupinder Singh son of Harmail Singh-petitioner-defendant (for brevity “the defendant”), to hand over the actual vacant possession of the suit property to her. 2. In the wake of notice, the defendant appeared and moved an application for rejection of the plaint, on account of deficiency in the court fee, invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, pleading that the plaintiff ought to have affixed the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the land in dispute, which is about Rs.30 lacs. 3. The plaintiff contested and denied all the allegations contained in the Civil Revision No. 3901 of 2011 2 application and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The plea of the defendant, directing the plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee, did not find favour with the trial court and it directed him (plaintiff), to calculate the court fee under Section 7(iv)(v)(c) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), by way of impugned order dated 08.10.2010. 5. Accordingly, the plaintiff calculated and furnished the requisite court fee, which was accepted by the trial court, by means of second impugned order dated 05.04.2011. 6. The petitioner-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders and preferred the instant revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiff has challenged the validity of the transfer deed, so, she was required to affix ad valorem court fee on the market value of the land, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 9. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, challenging the alleged transfer deed dated 06.07.2009, to which she is not a party. Once, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for a decree of declaration, challenging the transfer deed, to which she is not a party, in that eventuality, she is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee on the market price of the land in dispute, as urged on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. Sequelly, the trial Court negatived the plea of the defendant and directed the plaintiff, to calculate the court fee under Section 7(iv)(v)(c) of the Act, by virtue of impugned order dated 08.10.2010, which is substance is, as under: - Civil Revision No. 3901 of 2011 3 “It is an admitted fact of the parties that the plaintiff Paramjit Kaur is a non-executant to the transfer deed in question. The plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that the transfer deed No. 1651 dated 06.07.2009 is null, void, inoperative and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, and for directing the defendant to hand over the actual vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & others, reported in 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 564, inter alia, held that if a non-executant seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay ad valorem court fee as provided u/s 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Reverting to the facts of the present case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the transfer deed in question. The prayer is for a declaration to the effect that the transfer deed is null, void, inoperative and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, and for possession of the suit land. The plaintiff is not the executants of the transfer deed in question. Therefore, the court fee is computable u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The plaintiff has paid a court fee of Rs.10 for the relief of declaration and possession and Rs.5 for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff is directed to calculate the Court Fee in accordance with Section 7 (iv)(c) read with 7(v) of the Act, as indicated above, with reference to the plaint averments. 10. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiff calculated and furnished the requisite court fees, which was accepted by the trial Court through the medium of second impugned order dated 05.04.2011, which is, as follows: - “In the present case, plaintiff has furnished the court fee in compliance with the order dated 08.10.2010 passed on the application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC, but the defendant counsel raised objections to the same on the ground that the plaintiff has not furnished the ad valorem court fee in spite of the directions passed in order dated 08.10.2010 and as per the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & others, reported in 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564. The counsel for the plaintiff urged that he has furnished the court fee by calculating the same as 10 times the land revenue and the property being agricultural land assessed to the land revenue and further urged that same form whole of the estate and he has furnished the court fee Civil Revision No. 3901 of 2011 4 in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with 7(v) of the Act. Perusal of the Act also shows that in the same, it is mentioned that where the land form the entire estate, then the plaintiff has to file the court fee which is 10 times the land revenue on the said land which has been duly furnished. Hence, the same is accepted. Further, the case is adjourned to 26.04.2011 for filing of written statement and reply to the application u/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.” 11. Meaning thereby, the trial court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned orders in the relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore the impugned orders dated 08.10.2010 and 05.04.2011 are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 12.07.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema Judge