The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consequential relief to attract ad valorem court-fees in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed.

1. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration wherein the following relief was claimed :-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect the General Power of Attorney No. 6147/4 dated 14-9-2005 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and registered by Joint/Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana (Punjab) and the sale deed bearing No. 6122/1 dated 27-9-2005 executed by defendant No. 1 allegedly being General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 4, allegedly for a consideration of Rs. 34,50,000/- in respect of the land measuring 83 kanals 3 marlas as fully detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint, situated at village Adhon, Tehsil Thanesar, district Kurukshetra, vide jamabandi for the year 2003-04 are null and void, illegal, inoperative, ineffective, non est, void-ab initio, obtained by fraud and forgery and same are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as fully detailed in para No. 1 of the plaintiff and also further restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner, in favour of anybody on the basis of alleged General Power of Attorney dated 14-9-2005 and the sale deed dated 27-9-2005 may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of the present suit.

Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled or becomes entitled to the facts and circumstances of the present suit, may also be awarded to the plaintiff".

2. On notice having been served, the petitioner herein moved an application for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the ground that the plaintiff had sought cancellation of sale deed dated 27-9-2005 relating the suit land valuing at Rs. 34,50,000/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction so as to save himself from paying the requisite court-fee.

3. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that as the plaintiff-respondent has not sought the possession as consequential relief, therefore, ad valorem court-fee was not payable and, accordingly, dismissed the said application.

4. Mr. R. S. Mamli, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed alleged to have been executed on the basis of fraud and forgery and, therefore, the question of payment of court-fee would be covered under Article 1 Schedule-I of Court Fees Act (for short the Act ) and ad valorem court-fee would be payable. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Kaur V/s. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 PLJ 423 : (AIR 1981 P&H 368), wherein the Hon ble Full Bench of this Court has been pleased to lay down that the suit for cancellation of document or declaring the document voidable by a party to the document relating to agricultural land is covered under Article 1 Schedule I and not under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was virtually for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff through his Attorney and, therefore, the same could not be converted into one for declaration and consequential relief so as to bring it under the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Himanshu V/s. Smt. Kailash Rani, 2005 (1) CCC 337 : (AIR 2004 P&H 207, Para 7), wherein it was held as under :-

"In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, it would be clear that the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court-fees in the present suit on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, as by filin