Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3612 of 2008 Date of decision: September 12, 2008 Harjinder Singh …..PETITIONER Versus Harbinder Kaur and another …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. T.P.S.MANN, J. Order passed by learned trial Court, while allowing the application of the defendants-respondents, under Order VII Rule 13 CPC and directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad-valorem Court fee, has been challenged by him by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 30.1.2002 for sale of his self acquired land, measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas, being half share of 14 kanals 10 marlas, executed by his father-Kartar Singh, on the basis of his general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 was illegal, void, without consideration and result of fraud and mis-representation and therefore, liable to be set aside. He also sought permanent injunction so as to restrain the respondents from selling/alienating the said land to anyone else. While filing the application under Order VII Rule 13 CPC, respondent No.1 sought direction to the petitioner to pay ad-valorem Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 -2- Court fee in the suit as challenge was to the sale deed, which was for consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-. The stand of the petitioner was that since the property was acquired by joint funds of his and his father, therefore, fixed Court fee for relief of declaration had been affixed and no ad-valorem Court fee was required. Learned trial Court accepted the application filed by respondent No.1 by holding that the petitioner had sought cancellation of the sale deed and therefore, he was required to pay ad-valorem Court fee for sale consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had acquired the property out of the joint funds maintained by him and his father, whom he had appointed as his attorney by executing general power of attorney on 17.2.1996. Moreover, the sale deed had been executed by his father as his attorney, without receiving any consideration and therefore, the petitioner was not required to pay ad- valorem Court fee. He had only sought declaration against the sale deed being illegal, void, without consideration and result of fraud and mis- representation and thus, rightly paid fixed Court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gurjeewan Singh vs Jagar Singh and Others, 1990 (1) P.L.R 261 and Bhupesh Kumar Sharma and Others vs Manohar Kumari and Others, 2007(2) R.C.R (Civil) 784 in support of the proposition that even when declaration is sought against the sale deed/alienation, the plaintiff could not be asked to pay ad-valorem Court fee. The sale deed in question is shown to have been executed Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 -3- for consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-. Moreover, the petitioner had sought setting aside of the same. Therefore, he was required to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the sale consideration. In Gurjeewan Singh's case (Supra), the son had challenged alienation made by his father in a declaratory suit on the ground that it was without legal necessity. The son had also claimed possession. It was held that for all intents and purposes, the suit was for declaration and possession was by way of consequential relief. The son, being member of joint family, was held entitled to have the transaction declared null and void. In the present case, though the alienation was made by father of the petitioner, yet it was in respect of self acquired property of the petitioner himself, which was transferred by his father on the basis of power of attorney executed by the petitioner in his favour on 17.2.1996. The petitioner had sought the relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by his father as his attorney was illegal, null and void etc. and therefore, to be set aside. In Bhupesh Kumar Sharma's case (Supra), again the main relief sought by the plaintiffs was for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds were not binding on them as the defendants had no right to sell the land. The sale deeds had been executed by the defendants in excess of their shares. The plaintiffs were not party to the sale deeds. In the present case, the petitioner was party to the sale deed, for the reason that the sale deed had been executed by his father only on the basis of power of attorney executed by the petitioner, whereby he authorized his father in that regard. Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 -4- In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The revision is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. September 12, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 -5- CM No. 17784-CII of 2008 In Civil Revision No.3612 of 2008 PRESENT: Mr J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Application is allowed. Copy of the plaint is taken on record. September 12, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE