Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupesh Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs Manohar Kumari And Ors. on 23 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2007P&H50, AIR 2007 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 50, 2007 (3) AKAR (NOC) 307 (P&H), 2007 AIHC NOC 302, (2007) 2 LANDLR 639, (2007) 1 PUN LR 805, (2007) 2 RECCIVR 784
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 27-5-2005, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deeds.
2. The present suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the sale deeds dated 21-4-1995, 19-2-1996, 7-12-2001 and 7-8-2001 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have sought such declaration on the ground that the said sale deeds are in excess to the shares of the defendants, without any title and, therefore, will not bind the plaintiffs. The declaration was sought on the ground that in old litigation amongst the parties, the first appeal was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. Before the said litigation, properties between the said parties were joint, including the land in dispute, situated in the State of Haryana. The proceeding before the High Court of Rajasthan was decided vide compromise deed dated 21 -1 -1961. By virtue of said compromise deed, there was total partition of all the properties situated in the State of Haryana. In a subsequent proceeding, it was held by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon at Narnaul, vide judgment dated 18-6-1970 in CA No. 256 and 257 of 1969, that defendant No. 1 has sold the land in excess of his share. It is asserted that in view of the said judgment, defendant No. 1 had no concern with the land falling in Chah Meetha Wala and, therefore, the sale deed executed by said defendant is not legal and valid.
3. The learned trial Court, on an application filed by the defendants, found that the main relief sought by the plaintiffs is a suit for declaration and for cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed for a valuable consideration and, therefore, ad valorem court-fee is required to be affixed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deeds and, therefore, the suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession falls within Section 7 (iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act will not be applicable in the present case as the court-fee in respect of transaction is computable under Section 7 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of this Hon'ble Court, reported as 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 449 : 2006 (5) ALJ 647 Smt. Beena v. Rajinder Kumar as well as the judgments passed in "C.R. No. 790 of 2005 Bhagwan Kaur v. Amrik Singh" decided on 8-8-2006 and in C.R. No. 4265 of 2005 Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar" decided on 15-12-2006.
5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court that in a suit challenging the sale deed, where the consequential relief claimed is for possession, the ad valorem court-fee is payable in terms of Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act, is not applicable in the present case. The plaintiffs are not party to the sales. Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Act is applicable when the court-fee cannot be computed in terms of Section 7 of the Act. Since the plaintiffs have claimed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 are not binding on the plaintiffs in view of the fact that the said defendants have no alienable interest in the suit property, the plaintiffs are asking for declaration of rights and such suit falls within Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Since the plaintiffs have sought possession as well, the Court fee is payable in terms of Section 7(v) of the Act. The land in dispute is agricultural land and, therefore, the Court fee is to be computed in terms of Section 7(v) of the Act, as amended in the State of Haryana in 1974. The said principles have been enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, wherein the judgments referred to by the learned trial Court have been considered and held that such judgments are not applicable in such like cases.
6. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court, dated 27-5-2005 is set-aside. The learned trial Court shall compute the amount of court-fee payable in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and direct the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency in the court-fee, if any, within a reasonable time thereafter.