Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh And Ors. vs Labh Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2006P&H129, (2006)142PLR259, AIR 2006 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 129, 2006 (4) AKAR (NOC) 483 (P&H), 2006 HRR 1 111, (2006) 1 RECCIVR 208
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
ORDER Viney Mittal, J.
1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners before this Court. They filed a suit for declaration seeking relief of permanent injunction. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that they had become the owners of the suit land by virtue of various sale deeds executed by Swaran Singh. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that, however, the factum of sale had not been entered in the revenue record and, as such, the aforesaid Swaran Singh continued to be entered as the owner of the suit property. Taking advantage of the said fact, Swaran Singh had sold the suit land to the defendants vide sale deed executed subsequently. On account of the aforesaid sale deeds, the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed that they were owners in possession of the suit land and sought an injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land in any manner.
2. The suit was contested by the defendants. Various pleas were raised. The defendants also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that since the plaintiff had not paid ad valorem court fee on the market value of the land in question, therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiff was liable to be rejected.
3. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid application, vide order dated March 9, 2005 has directed the plaintiffs to affix ad valorem court fee. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the plaintiffs through the present petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the records of the case.
5. The narration of above facts clearly shows that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was essentially a suit based on the basis of their title to the suit land. They had claimed the declaration of ownership and had sought permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing them forcibly. Since the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of their title, which they claimed on the basis of sale deeds executed by Swaran Singh in the year 1976, therefore, the plaintiffs were not required to pay any ad valorem court fee. The mere fact that the plaintiff had not been recorded in the column of ownership of the revenue record would not change the status of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were still not required to challenge the sale deeds executed by Swaran Singh in favour of the defendants which were executed after execution of sale deeds in their favour.
6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be legally sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. The plaintiffs would not be required to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint.
7. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court in the present order shall not be taken to be expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.