Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Santosh Malhan & Anr vs Naina Devi & Ors on 13 January, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CR No.128 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.128 of 2014
Date of Decision: 13.1.2014
Smt.Santosh Malhan & Anr.
......Petitioners
Versus
Naina Devi & Ors.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-plaintiffs Naina Devi, wife of Magh Singh and others (for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the impugned power of attorney, agreement to sell, registered sale deed, bearing No.404 dated 12.4.2010 and its subsequent mutation dated 21.4.2010 are altogether null, void, ab initio, illegal, based on misrepresentation, fraud and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent (prohibitory & mandatory) injunction restraining petitioner-defendants No.2 and 3 Smt.Santosh Malhan & Madhu Goyal and others (for short "the defendants") from interfering into their peaceful possession over the land in dispute.
2. Instead of contesting the suit on merits, the petitioner- Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.16 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.128 of 2014 2 defendants moved the application (Annexure P2) for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non affixation of ad valorem Court fee equivalent to the consideration amount.
3. The plaintiffs refuted the claim of defendants, filed the reply (Annexure P3) to the application, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal. It was claimed that the Court fee affixed by the plaintiffs was appropriate as they were not parties to the impugned registered sale deed.
4. Taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendants, by means of impugned order dated 4.12.2013.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendants have preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
7. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the sale consideration amount of ` 15 lacs is mentioned in the impugned registered sale deed, so, the plaintiffs were required to affix the ad valorem Court fee on it, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in cases Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur v. Surjeet Singh and others 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 195, Mohiinder Singh v. Jai Pal & another 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 771 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Ambika Prasad and others v. Shree Ram Shiromani alias Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi and another 2011 AIR Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.16 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.128 of 2014 3 (MP) 18 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that if the plaintiff actually seeks cancellation of sale deed, he is required to pay ad valorem court fee in terms of Section 7 (vi) (c) of Court Fees Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
8. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. 2010 AIR (SC) 2807. Having interpreted the relevant provisions of Section 7 of the Act, it was ruled that if the plaintiff is not executant of the sale deed, then, he is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee. It is not a matter of dispute that plaintiffs are not executants and they have challenged the sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, they are not required to pay ad valorem court fee. Thus, the ratio of law laid down in Suhrid Singh's case (supra) ''mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.16 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.128 of 2014 4
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons , as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendants is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 13.1.2014 AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.16 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh