The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of ad valorem Court-fees on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, as supported by various legal provisions and interpretations from different cases.

1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court vide which the review application filed by defendant No. 1 was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to affix the ad valorem Court-fees on the impugned sale deed dated 19-4-1993.

2. Himanshu plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession with mandatory injunction against the defendants to the effect that the sale deed dated 19-4-1993 executed by his grand father Nihal Chand (defendant No, 2) in favour of defendant No. 1-Smt. Kailash Rani was illegal and void and the same was executed without consideration and legal necessity, based on fraud etc. and was not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit was contested by defendant No. 1, alleging therein that she had purchased the land in question from defendant No. 2-Nihal Chand after paying full consideration of Rs. 1,90.000/- and that the same was legal and valid and the father had the legal necessity to sell the suit land. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale deed, since the plaintiff was challenging the legality of the sale deed. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and it was alleged that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid on the value of the sale deed. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court, after placing reliance on 1990 (1) PLR 261 held that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. Resultantly, the application filed by defendant No. 1 was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 22-10-2002. Thereafter defendant No. 1 filed application for review of the aforesaid order dated 22-10-2002 on the ground that authority 1990 (1) PLR 261 had been wrongly relied upon while passing the order dated 22-10-2002 and the provisions of the Court-Fees Act were ignored. The said application for review filed by defendant No. 1 was contested by the plaintiff on various grounds including the question of delay, maintainability of the review application and also on merits, alleging therein that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-10-2003 reviewed the earlier order dated 22- 10-2002 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale deed dated 19-4-1993. Aggrieved against this order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before me that no case was made out for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees, in view of the law laid down by this Court in 1990 (1) PLR 261 Gurjeewan Singh V/s. Jagar Singh and 1987 Rent Rev Reports 373 Tara Singh v. Tarsem Singh. It was further submitted that in any case, no case for reviewing the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 was made out.

4. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. In Ranjit Singh V/s. Balkar Singh. 2000 (2) Pun LJ 295, it was held by this Court that where the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 24-7-1997 for Rs. 1,62,000/- executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal and void and without consideration and legal necessity and based on fraud and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the sale consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. While coming to this conclusion, this Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh V/s. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 SC 2384 as also on the law laid down by a Full Bench of this