Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Balkar Singh on 7 July, 1999
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale of the suit land measuring 19 kanals 17 marlas, 4 kanals 1 marla, 3 kanals 5 marlas and 12 kanals 11 marlas in various killa numbers situated in village Kuttabagh, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, for a consideration Rs. 1,62,000/- by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 vide a registered sate deed No. 640 dated 24th July, 1997 was "wrong, illegal, void, ineffective, against the rights of the plaintiffs, without consideration, fraudulent in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and being the effect of mis-representation, coercion and without legal necessity."
2. Valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction was assessed at Rs. 200/- by the petitioners-plaintiffs and accordingly court fee vajuing at Rs. 25/- was affixed on the plaint. An application was filed by the defendants under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contesting the court-fee affixed. As per the respondents-defendants the plaintiffs-petitioners have challenged the validity of the sale-deed dated 24th July, 1997 by which defendant No. 2 had transferred the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/- and accordingly was liable to affix ad-valorem court fee. According to the claim of the defendants, the title of the property has already passed to defendant No. 1 by virtue of the aforesaid regislered sale deed and it is only upon cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 1997 that the suit land could vest in the plaintiffs, in other words, till the cancellation of the sale deed the property will continue to vest with defendant No. 1. Accepting the plea of the respondents-defendants, the trial Court vide its order dated 3rd June, 1999 held that ad-valorem court fee was payable and accordingly the petitioners-plaintiffs were directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideralion of Rs. 1,62,000/-. It is the aforesaid order of the trial Court which is impugned in the instant civil revision.
3. While determining the aforesaid controversy, the trial Court relied in the determination of this Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 1998(2) Rev. L.R. 390 : 1998(3) RCR(Civit) 135(P&H). This Court in the aforesaid case while relying upon the decision of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2384 (Supreme Court), and Full Bench decision of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nir-bigan Kaur (Minor), 1981 Rev. L.R. 428, arrived at the conclusion that the Court in deciding the question of court fee should look into the allegations in the plaint and determine the nature of the substantive relief prayed for.
4. In Shamsher Singh's case (supra), the plaintiffs' father executed a mortgagee deed by claiming himself to be sole owner of the mortgaged property. On the basis of the aforesaid deed he filed a suit and obtained a decree. The mortgaged then tried to take out execution proceedings for the sale of the mortgaged property. The sons then filed a suit for a declaration that the mortgage was null and void and ineffective as against them as the property was a joint Hindu Family property. On the plaint tiled by the sons they paid/filed court fee of Rs. 19.50 which was objected to. The trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the matter of this Court. This Court set aside the order of the trial Court and agreed that the plaintiffs by taking the view that the plaintiffs were not at all bound by the mortgage in dispute or the decree. The Apex Court, however, did not agree with the determination of this Court. The plaintiffs were accordingly permitted time to make good the court-fee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Shamsher Singh's case (supra) observed as under :-
"As regards the main question that arises for decision it appears to us that while the court-fee payable on a plaint is certainly to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the plaintiffs' suit will have to fail for failure to ask for consequential relief is of no concern to the Court at that stage, the Court in deciding the question of court-fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the sub-
stance of the relief asked for."
5. This Court in Niranjan Kaur's case (supra) expressed that where the main relief is that of cancellation of the deed, declaration, if any, prayed for is only a surplus-age.
6. From the title of the suit extracted in the impugned order it is clear that the main relief sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs is for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 24th July, 1997 which was admittedly for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. In view of the legal position expressed above, I cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs to the effect that the present case is governed for the purpose of court fee by section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
7. It also deserves to be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245, and strenuously asserted that the question of court fee must be seen in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleadings in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. According to the learned counsel, so far as the scheme for computation of the court fee payable in suit covered by several sub-sections of section 7 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, is concerned it is clear that in respect of suits falling under sub-section (iv) a departure has been made and liberty has been granted to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of the court fee. In exercising the aforesaid fiberty, the plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and accordingly affixed court fee of Rs. 25/- on the plaint.
8. The aforesaid plea of the learned counsel is wholly unacceptable in law keeping in view the fact that primary relief claimed by the petitioners- plaintiffs is for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 24th July, 1997 by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. This claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot be considered to be governed by section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. Therefore, ad-valorem court fee is liable to be paid on the sale consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-.
9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
10. Revision dismissed.