C.R.No.5904 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5904 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.10.2011 Tara Singh ... Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner has assailed the order of the trial court dated 4.8.2011, Annexure P.3 whereby an application filed by the defendants-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) for rejection of plaint on the ground that ad valorem court fee had not been affixed, has been accepted by the trial Court. 2. Briefly, the facts may be noticed. The plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for declaration to declare the transfer of ownership deed as null and void the same being obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. During the pendency of the suit, 1 C.R.No.5904 of 2011 Defendant No.1 filed an application for rejection of the plaint with the averment that the plaintiff had claimed the relief of cancellation of registered deed of transfer dated 6.1.2010 executed by him in favour of defendants with the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was a party to the transfer deed which was challenged on the ground of fraud. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaint required ad volerum court fee to be affixed on the suit property and accordingly allowed the application and granted time to the plaintiff upto 19.10.2011 to comply with the requirement of court fee. The petitioner has approached this Court as noticed above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit in substance is only for declaration that the sale deed dated 6.1.2010 was bad on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and the consequential relief was ancillary thereto. In such circumstances, it was submitted that in view of judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 PLJ 423 and judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Teja Singh v. Smt.Amar Kaur and others, 2008(1) Latest Judicial Reports 99, no ad-valorem Court fee under Court Fee Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was leviable. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff-petitioner being in possession of the disputed land, so no relief of possession had 2 C.R.No.5904 of 2011 been claimed and, therefore, Court fee under Section 7(iv) (c ) of the Act at the value fixed by the plaintiff had been rightly paid on the suit/plaint. 4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 5. The Hon’ble apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2807, while analysing the scope of section 7(iv) (c ) of the Act had authoritatively laid down the following principles for payment of Court fee:- 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. 3 C.R.No.5904 of 2011 6. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-petitioner had challenged the deed of transfer dated 6.1.2010 which was executed by him in favour of the defendants. The said transfer deed was claimed to be illegal and void due to misrepresentation. The petitioner has challenged the sale deed to which he was a party on the ground that the same was based on fraud and misrepresentation. In view of the principles of law laid down in Surhid Singh’s case (supra), the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance his case and the plaintiff-petitioner is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee as directed by the trial court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. October 18, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 4