Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 21.4.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rohtak, vide which application filed by present petitioners-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Code") for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 , (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act") has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed No.461 dated 12.4.2007 executed and registered in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No. 1 is null, void and nonest in the eyes of law with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plea has been taken that plaintiff, is co-owner and in possession of the land in dispute and the same has not been partitioned so far and hence, sale-deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 is without any right. For the purpose of Court fee, the plaintiff affixed Rs.25A on the plaint.

4. Petitioner-defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that respondent-plaintiff has challenged the sale-deed without affixing the ad valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Learned trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants on the ground that plaintiff was not a party to the sale-deed and that he has only sought for relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction without claiming relief of possession and as the respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the said sale-deed hence, he is not entitled to affix court fee on the amount of consideration of the sale-deed under challenge.

5. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the sale-deed and however, he has challenged the sale-deed, hence, he is required to pay ad valorem court fee. On the point, he has placed reliance upon two judgments of different coordinate Benches of this Court rendered in Ranjit Singh and others v. Balkar Singh and another, (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 382 and Om Parkash v. Inderawati and others (2002-3)131 P.L.R. 11.

6. However, mere is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners as law has been settled by Honble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, (2010-2)158 P.L.R. 707 (S.C.) in which it has been specifically held that in case where plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the sale-deed is null and void being not a party to the sale deed and is also not seeking possession, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee but where the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale-deed alongwith consequential relief of possession, he is required to pay advalorem court fee. The relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment reads as under:-

"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 st-eks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed in invalid, or nonest, 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 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 t