Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - By way of this revision petition, order dated 10.4.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby accepting application of the respondents defendants (in the suit preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging a sale deed) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner-plaintiff has been called upon by the lower court to make up deficiency in the court fee, is under challenge. It is claimed that since the impugned sale deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation at the hands of the respondents-defendants and no consideration had passed hands, no court fee is payable by the petitioner plaintiff. It is also claimed that possession of the land is also undisturbed and no relief of possession has been claimed either.

2. Stand of the respondents-defendants, on the other hand, is that the petitioner-plaintiff being vendor is a party to the sale deed wherein consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- had been paid and thus ad-valorem court fee is payable.

3. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the grounds of revision, impugned order as also material and circumstances on the paper book.

4. The petitioner is executant of the sale deed impugned by her in the suit wherein she has sought declaration that it is null and void. Relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendnts against alienation of the suit in any manner has been sought. It is claimed that the sale deed is result of fraud where nether sale was intended to be made nor any consideration had passed to her. It is, thus, urged that ad-valorem court fee is not payable.

5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that irrespective of nature of the document i.e. as to whether it is a sale-deed or gift deed or a Court decree, once relief of declaration of the document alleging the same as illegal, null and void etc., some consequential relief has been sought, it attracts affixation of advalorem Court fee. Counsel for the contesting respondents has sought support from judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court titled Gobind Kaur Versus Pritam Singh 1975 PLR 06 wherein considering interplay of provisions of Section 7 (iv)(c) & 7(v) & Schedule I Article I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was held that where suit for declaration that the impugned gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the the defendant was not operative qua the rights of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and further relief for possession of the suit property was sought, ad-valorem Court fee was held to be payable on the plaint. Support has further been sought from yet another authority of a coordinate Bench of this Court reported as Jagat Singh Versus Avtar Singh and others, 1970 Crl.Law Journal, 80, where possession was sought without getting the gift-deed cancelled but it was held that the plaintiff had to get the alleged gift deed (to which he himself was a party) cancelled before he could seek possession of the land. The plaintiff was ordered to pay ad-valorem Court fee on the value of the property involved.

6. In the present case, circumstances are different. There is nothing to show that payment, in fact, was made to the petitioner-vendor. Rather, suit of the petitioner-plaintiff that she was to transfer her property in favour of her five sons for which she was taken to the Sub-Registrar’s office but was defrauded by the respondent-vendee, is pending adjudication.

7. Concededly, the petitioner is more than 100 years old Parda Nashin lady. She was earlier married with one Tarif after whose death, she did Karewa marriage with one Ramphal from which marriage, two daughters, who are now married, were born to her. She is now residing in her parental house whereas land measuring 7 Kanal 4 Marlas is located in village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. This land had come to her from her earlier husband Tarif but was being cultivated by her subsequent husband Ramphal who had 5 sons out of whom,