Civil Revision No.7596 of 2009 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7596 of 2009 Date of decision:09.08.2010. Surinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha by which an application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [for short “the Act”] has been dismissed. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit to challenge sale deed No.3452 dated 01.01.2008 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 6 Bighas 6 Biswas being 126/1599 share out of 79 Bighas 19 Biswas, situated at village Tungan, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The plaintiff had sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction and affixed court fee of Rs.32.50. The defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Revision No.7596 of 2009 - 2 - ****** CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent has challenged sale deed without affixing ad-valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed and has only sought declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued vehemently that the plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fee for challenging the sale deed but he could not support his argument with any precedent, rather the Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2811-2813 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2010 has held that in a case where the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the sale deed is null and void being not a party to the sale deed and is also not seeking possession, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee but where the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed along with consequential relief of possession, he is required to pay ad-valorem court fee. The Apex Court has explained both the circumstances by way of an illustration, which is reproduced as under: - “Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard Civil Revision No.7596 of 2009 - 3 - ****** to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' – two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non- binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad- valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) Civil Revision No.7596 of 2009 - 4 - ****** provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.” In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. August 09, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE