Court Fee – Suit for declaration by co-sharer that the sale deed executed by other co-sharer is not binding on him – Plaintiff has to pay fixed court fee and not ad-valorem court fee

Mr. B.S. Walia, J.:- Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Indri, in case titled as ‘Savneer Bal and others’ versus Baldev Singh and another’, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the revision petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration that sale deed bearing Vasika No.1158/1 dated 15.07.2013 was illegal, null and void, inoperative, in contravention of the law and not binding upon the rights of the respondents-plaintiffs with a prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner-defendant from further alienating the suit land by way of sale, mortgage, charge, lien, gift etc.

3. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had wrongly assessed the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and affixed Court fee of Rs.25/- only as against the requirement to assess the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as per the sale consideration of the suit property as mentioned in the sale deed.

4. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Indri vide order dated 27.04.2018, dismissed the application filed by the petitionerdefendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by observing that the respondentplaintiffs, were neither executants of the sale deed under challenge nor were seeking consequential relief of possession, being co-sharers/coparcener in the suit property and as per decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh and others’, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : 2010 AIR (SC) 2807 it was settled law that when a non executant challenged a sale deed without seeking consequential relief of possession, Court fee was not required to be affixed by such party as per the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made before the learned trial Court and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the revision petition whereas learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 reiterated the reasoning for the passing of the impugned order and prayed for upholding of the same.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

7. At the outset, it needs noticing that at the time of preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Suhrid Singh’s case (supra) had contended that the respondents-plaintiffs although were not the executant of the sale deed yet not being in possession had sought a declaration that the sale deed was invalid and had also sought consequential relief of possession, therefore, were bound to pay ad valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

8. A perusal of paragraph No.3 of the plaint reveals the averment of the petitioner-defendant No.1 being joint owner in possession of ancestral land with the respondents-plaintiffs as comprised in Khewat No.396 min Khatoni No.408 min Khasra No.14//4/1/2(6-4), 4/2(1-0), Kittas-2 measuring 7 Kanal 4 Marla and Khewat No.900 min Khatoni No.1029 Khasra No.14//5/1(4-4) Kittas-1 measuring 4 Kanal 4 Marla thus total land 11K – 8M vide jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 and mutation No.2703 situated in village Randoli District Karnal, besides there were other properties qua which the respondents plaintiffs reserved their rights to file a separate suit. Moreover, in paragraph No.10 of the plaint, it has been averred that the suit land was ancestra