IMPORTANT POINT
Ad volerm Court Fee--Cancellation of sale deed--No substantial relief of possession has been claimed and while pleading the suit property to be joint hindu family property sought declaration regarding cancellation of the sale deed, no advalorem court fee is required.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendant-respondent for paying ad-valorem court fee over the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been accepted and the plaintiff was ordered to pay ad-valorem court fee.

2. To decide the question of court fee, it would be essential to reproduce the claim set up by the plaintiff in his suit.

3. The plaintiff has sought cancellation of the sale deed No.590 dated 24.5.2004 executed by the defendants No.3 and 4 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 for sale of the land measuring 82 kanals 11 marlas saying that the same are illegal, null and void, in operative and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff. Similarly, he has also claimed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of one plot measuring 29 x 72 as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, on the ground that the sale deed qua the said house is illgal, null and void. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff or demolishing any part of the house has also been sought.

4. The plaintiff claimed the suit property to be joint Hindu family property on the ground that the plaintiff, defendants No.l, 2 and 5 and their parents had purchased the suit land by an unregistered sale deed from defendants No.3 and 4 and they were delivered possession at the time of sale. Thereafter a family settlement took place between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.l, 2 and 5, wherein, the defendants No.l, 2 and 5 settled the house measuring 29x 72 upon the plaintiff out of the suit land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas. The said family settlement was reduced into writing on 1.8.1990. Thus, the plaintiff claim their ownership over the suit property on the basis of the acquisition by way of family settlement, out of the total joint property. Consequently, he has also challenged the sale deed dated 24.5.2004, qua the suit house and stated that the defendants No.3 and 4 had no right to execute the said sale deed in favour of the defendants No.l, 2 and 5.

5. From the aforesaid facts of the case, the petitioners have articulate right in the property and on the basis of the said rights, they have claimed ownership over the same and challenged the sale deed as nonest in the eyes of law. Reading of the plant and the relief claimed would show that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of cancellation of the sale deed to which the petitioner was not a party. Full Bench of this Court in case Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbhigan Kaur, (1982)84 P.L.R. 127 observed as under:-

"9. In a suit to obtain declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed, sub-clause (iii) of article 17 of schedule II of the Act, will be applicable, but the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was virtually, to all intents and purposes, for the cancellation of the sale deed, executed by her, in favour of the defendant-respondent. She cannot claim possession unless the said deed is cancelled by a decree of the Court. To say in the plaint, that it be declared that the sale deed, got executed from her as a result of the fraud, was void and not binding on her, does not convert the suit into one for a declaration with the consequential relief of possession so as to fall within the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. To such a suit, the only article applicable article 1, Schedule I of the Act, and for that proposition, further support can be had from a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kalu Rams case (supra) also wherein as regards the valuation of the relief as to the cancellation of the alienation, it has been held that such a relief falls neither under Section 7(iv)(c) nor under Schedule II article (iii), but under the residuary article I, Schedule I of the Act."

6. In the present case also, the main and substantial relief sought for by the plaintiff is declaration and the consequenti