CIVIL REVISION NO.1069 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.1069 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 Chaman Lal & Others .... Petitioners VERSUS Ishwar & Ors. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. **** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.01.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar thereby directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court fee on the highest sale consideration out of the three sale deeds challenged in the suit. Plaintiffs has have filed suit challenging sale deed executed by defendant No.1 as attorney of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.2 and also subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 and also further sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Whereas none has appeared for contesting respondent No.3 on whose application the impugned order was passed by the Court. CIVIL REVISION NO.1069 OF 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that ad valorem Court fee is not payable by the plaintiffs because the sale deed was executed on their behalf by their alleged attorney and plaintiffs in the suit have alleged that the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and the same is forged and fabricated. The contention cannot be accepted. As per authoritative pronouncement of the law on the subject by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Others, AIR, 2010 Supreme Court Cases, 2807, if executant of a sale deed files suit to challenge the same, ad valorem Court fee has to be paid on consideration recited in the sale deed. In the instant case, plaintiffs are executants of the first sale deed, which was executed on their behalf by their alleged attorney defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Consequently plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem fee on sale consideration recited in the said sale deed dated 16.03.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioners are liable to pay Court fee on the market value of agricultural land in suit as computed under Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act as applicable to State of Haryana. This contention is also unacceptable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh (supra) which specifically stipulates that ad valorem Court fee is payable on the consideration recited in the sale deed in question. However, there is one illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. The plaintiffs in the suit have challenged three successive sale deeds. The trial Court has ordered payment of ad valorem Court fee CIVIL REVISION NO.1069 OF 2010 -3- on highest sale consideration out of the three sale deeds. This is illegal and unsustainable because the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in sale deed dated 16.03.1993 only which was executed on their behalf by their alleged attorney defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are not executants of the subsequent two sale deeds out of which one was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 and the other by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. Consequently the plaintiffs could not be directed to pay ad valorem court fee on highest consideration recited in any of the three sale deeds. Petitioners are entitled to succeed to this extent. For the reasons stated above instant revision petition is partly allowed and the trial Court order Annexure P-1 is modified to the extent that the petitioners are directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in sale deed dated 16.03.1993. The petitioners shall pay the said ad valorem Court fee within two months from today, in the trial Court. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE November 23, 2010 'raj'