IMPORTANT POINT
Court Fee--Sole determining factor for valuation and payment of Court fee--Would be substance of relief sought for and not form.
Court Fee--Ad-valorem Court fee--Suit for possession claiming himself as owner--Substance in relief sought was cancellation of sale deed--He is required to pay ad-valorem Court fee on sale consideration of sale deed.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 22.01.2004, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division ), Dasuya, vide which it accepted the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendants (now respondents) and directed the plaintiff (now revision petitioner), to affix the requisite advalorem Court fee, on the sale consideration of the sale deed.

2. The plaintiff (now revision petitioner) claimed that he was the owner of the property, in dispute. It was stated that he had not sold the suit land, vide sale deed dated 20.07.1996, set up by the defendants. It was further stated that the said sale deed was a forged and fabricated document, created by the defendants, at his back, by producing some impostor, in his place. It was further stated that he was entitled to possession of the land, in dispute, on the strength of his title. The plaintiff, thus, affixed the Court fee assessing the same on the land revenue.

3. An application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants (now respondents) that the plaintiff had sought possession of the land, in dispute, by challenging the genuineness and validity of the sale deed dated 20.07.1996, which was executed in their favour by him(plaintiff) for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It was further stated that the substance of the relief, which was sought by the plaintiff, was the cancellation of sale deed dated 20.07.1996 and, as such, he was required to pay the advalerum Court fee, on the sale consideration of the sale deed, and not on the basis of the land revenue, to which the land in dispute was assessed. That application was accepted by the Court below, vide its order dated 22.01.2004.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the plaintiff (now revision petitioner) never sought the cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not a party to the same, as some impostor was put up, in his place, and the sale deed, in question, was executed by him (imposter), in favour of the defendants. He further submitted that he was not required to pay advalorem Court fee, on the sale consideration. He further submitted that it was for the plaintiff to claim the relief, as he desired, and, if he omitted to seek an essential relief with regard to the cancellation of the sale deed, and without which the relief sought by him, as framed, could not be allowed to him, at the most, his suit would be dismissed. He further submitted that, as such, the Court fee affixed by the plaintiff, on the plaint, in view of the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c), was correct. He further submitted that the order impugned suffers from patent illegality and, thus, was liable to be set aside.

6-A. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that for determining the question of payment of correct court fee, the court is required to look in the substance of relief sought for by the plaintiff. He further submitted that the substance of relief sought for by the plaintiff was the cancellation of the sale deed, and, as such, he was required to pay the advalorem court fee on the sale consideration. He further submitted that the order is legal.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision/petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to what should be the correct Court fee, to be affixed by the plaintiff, on the plaint, is required to see the substance of the relief, sought for by him and not merely the form of the same. It would be the substance of the