C.R. No.5783 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5783 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.9.2010 Bhagwana ……Petitioner VERSUS M/s Sahara Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd. ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.8.2010, whereby the learned trial Court has directed the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property as mentioned in the sale deed within one month. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction contending therein that sale deed bearing No.9374 dated C.R. No.5783 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 8.8.2005 executed by deceased father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant (respondent herein) is liable to be cancelled with conse- quential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that Kehar Singh, father of the plaintiff, was aged 102 years at the time of exe- cution of sale deed and he was not keeping well and he was incom- petent to understand the nature of documents executed by him and by playing fraud on him, defendant No.1 got executed the sale deed. In the present case, plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the sale deed saying it is outcome of the fraud. 3. Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as un- der:- “19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.:- When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresenta- tion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or mis-representation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true. Exception.-If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the C.R. No.5783 of 2010 (O&M) -3- means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence. Explanation.- A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was prac- tised, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.” 4. From the perusal of Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, I have no doubt in my mind, if any document/agreement/contract is outcome of misrepresentation or fraud, that document would be void- able and not void. If document is voidable then the proper relief to seek is the cancellation of the document, however, if document is void then declaration is sufficient. If plaintiff or his predecessor-in-in- terest is not a party to the void document, then he is not supposed to pay ad-valorem court fee. However, if plaintiff or his predecessor-in- interest is party to the deed and deed is voidable, then plaintiff is re- quired to pay ad-valorem court fee. In the present case, cancellation of document is involved with consequential relief, hence, plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the prop- erty in dispute. 5. No interference is called for. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 09th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish