Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balpreet Singh vs Devinder Singh And Others on 25 September, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No. 5826 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 5826 of 2013
Date of Decision: September 25, 2013
Balpreet Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Devinder Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application filed by respondent nos.
1 and 2 has been allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
In civil suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff relief has been sought to declare the sale deed dated 05.10.2012 purported to be executed by the petitioner as null and void. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently Kumar Virender 2013.09.27 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5826 of 2013 2 contended that fraud has been played by respondent no.1 in connivance with respondent nos. 2 to 4. Since the fraud is apparent so the sale deed is result of fraud. As such, no court fee is required to be paid at the market value of the property as mentioned in the sale deed.
I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
At this stage, it cannot be appreciated as to whether fraud has been committed; that is to be proved by leading cogent evidence.
Admittedly, the petitioner-plaintiff was participant in the execution of the sale deed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, 2010(2) Civil Court Cases, 510 (SC) has held as under:-
"5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab (`Act' for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs.19/50 on plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which provides :
"7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits : The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :Kumar Virender 2013.09.27 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5826 of 2013 3
(iv) in suits - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought:
Provided that minimum court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought 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 this section." The second proviso to section 7(iv) of the Act will apply in this case and the valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of the said section. Clause (v) provides that where the relief is in regard to agricultural lands, court fee should be reckoned with reference to the revenue payable under clauses (a) to (d) thereof; and where the relief is in regard to the houses, court fee shall be on the market value of the houses, under clause (e) thereof.
6. 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 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 Kumar Virender 2013.09.27 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5826 of 2013 4 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) 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.
7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv) Kumar Virender 2013.09.27 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 5826 of 2013 5
(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds."
In the present case also, apparently the petitioner-plaintiff was participant in the execution of the sale deed; the fraud alleged is yet to be proved, therefore, the court fee payable is ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration. Thus, this matter is squarely covered by Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case (supra).
In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
September 25, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2013.09.27 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document