Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.11.2008 Nanki @ Vidya Devi .......... Petitioner Versus Judlal & Anr. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sirsa whereby an application moved by the defendant-respondents for direction to the petitioners to pay ad-valorem Court fee, has been allowed. The petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of ½ share of land measuring 233 Kanal 16 Marlas situated in village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The plaintiff further claimed the cancellation of the sale deeds and impugned judgment and decrees executed by Raja Ram, father of the plaintiff-Nanki Devi. Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2006 (O&M) -2- On notice, the defendant-respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking direction to the plaintiff for affixing the ad valorem Court Fees as per the market value of the land forming subject matter of the judgments and decree dated 14.1.1970 passed in civil suit No. 1979 of 1969, judgment and decree dated 21.3.1984 passed in civil suit No. 301 of 1984 and judgment and decree dated 1.4.1991 passed in civil suit No. 287-C of 1991. The learned trial Court accepted the application and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to affix the requisite ad valorem Court fee on or before 29.9.2006. Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the land in dispute is agricultural land and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee for seeking declaration to the effect that the impugned judgments, decrees and mutation were not binding on her, with consequential relief of possession. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar & Ors. 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 1 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- “5. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in the suit framed the petitioner has primarily claimed the relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds in the suit for declaration and, therefore, the case was not covered under Section 7(iv)(b)(c) and, therefore, he was required to pay the Court fee on the sale Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2006 (O&M) -3- consideration as well as on the will dated 29.7.1990 as per the prevalent rate of suit property. This finding of the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. The Court fee has to be assessed keeping in view the suit as framed. The reading of the plaint and the relief claimed would show that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of cancellation of decrees passed by the Court in which he is not a party. Once the petitioner plaintiff was not party to the sale deeds and was claiming ownership and consequential relief on the basis of declaration prayed for, therefore advoleram Court fee was not payable as he cannot be held to be bound by the act of third party. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Beena and others Vs. Rajinder Kumar and others 2006(2) Punjab Law Reporter 6. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents , however, supported the impugned order by contending that the present case falls under Schedule 1 Rule of the Court Fee Act and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee. On consideration of the matter, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Beena and others Vs. Rajinider Kumar and others (supra) as the sale deed challenged is regarding agricultural land, which is subject to land revenue, Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2006 (O&M) -4- the ad valorem court fee payable would, therefore, be not on the value of the property but on the value which is ten times of the land revenue in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) as quantified under Section 7(V) of the Act. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to redetermine the Court fee payable by taking into consideration the amendment in the State of Haryana vide Act No.22 of 1974. 28.11.2008 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE