Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 Date of decision: 04.09.2009 Smt. Banto Devi and another ....Petitioners versus Gurdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate, and Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 titled Smt. Banto Devi and another Vs. Gurdev Singh and others and Civil Revision No. 6096 of 2006 titled Jasbir Singh and another Vs. Smt. Banto Devi and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 titled Smt. Banto Devi and another Vs. Gurdev Singh and others The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 -2- under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, The learned Court, by way of impugned order, accepted the application, moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint for want of ad valorem court fee. The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the release deed No. 1754 dated 23.12.2004, which was registered on 8.11.2005, with regard to 112 kanals 15 marlas of land situated at village Bastianwala, Tehsil Jagadhri, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. The subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5, was also challenged. The petitioners claimed, that at the time of execution of release deed, they did not appear before the Joint Sub Registrar, Bilaspur, and some other ladies impersonated them, who were wrongly identified by Sh. Jarnail Singh. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion, that the prayer in the suit for setting aside the sale deed and release deed being the main relief, the plaintiff/petitioners were liable to pay ad valorem court fee. The application was accordingly allowed, and the petitioners were directed to make good the court fee within two weeks of the passing of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the plaintiff/petitioners were not party party to the sale deed, and defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 on the basis of release Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 -3- deed, which was outcome of fraud, as some other ladies impersonated the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that as the petitioners were not party to the sale deed and the release deed, and, therefore, not bound by the acts of the third party. It is also the case of the petitioners that Section 7(iv)(b)(c) of the Court Fees Act was not applicable, so as to attract ad valorem court fee, as the petitioners were merely claiming declaration of their ownership. The challenge to the sale deed and release deed was only consequential relief. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 1 and Ram Singh and others Vs. Labh Singh and others, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 209, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that when the suit for declaration based on existing title, subsequent sale deeds can be avoided by decree of injunction and declaration, and the party claiming on the basis of title is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. On consideration, I do not find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The release deed was executed in the name of the plaintiff/petitioners, and it is yet to be proved by way of evidence as to whether the release deed was result of impersonation. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127 laid down, that when a document is challenged on the plea of fraud, then the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee, as by intelligent drafting payment of court fee cannot Civil Revision No. 5585 of 2006 -4- be avoided. However, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court requires to be modified in view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Beena and others Vs. Rajinder Kumar and others, 2006(2) PLR 6, laying down therein that in view of the amended provisions of the Haryana Court Fee Act, the ad valorem court fee is not to be affixed on the market value, but in terms of amended provisions of Section 7(v) of the Haryana Court Fee Act, while upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court, it is directed that the plaintiff/petitioners shall be liable to pay the court fee under Section 7(v) as amended by the Haryana Amendment Act 22 of 1974. The plaintiff/petitioners can now make good the court fee within one month of the date of receipt of certified copy of this Court. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 04, 2009 R.S.