The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of ad valorem Court fee for challenging a transfer deed, which is determined based on the consideration shown in the deed and the principles established in relevant judicial decisions.

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner through his LRs against the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to affix the ad valorem Court fee and to make good the deficiency in Court fee.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property. Transfer deed dated 31.05.2011 was claimed to be sham transaction and was not binding upon the right and title of the plaintiff. Permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff.

3. Defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the plaintiff has challenged the transfer deed, therefore, he was required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of the deed for the relief of cancellation of the deed. Plaintiff claimed that since possession was with the plaintiff, therefore, ad valorem Court fee was not required to pay. Plaintiff is the executant of transfer deed and the same was claimed to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation.

4. Trial Court allowed the application on the ground that the plaintiff being the executant of deed is required to affix ad valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the deed.

5. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The expression “law” occurring in Order 7 Rule 11 (d) includes judicial decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court is the law of land. The law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is law of land. Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. Reference can be made to Virender Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P., 2014(9) ADJ 506 and Bhargavi Constructions and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 359.

7. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down some parameters for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The principles as laid down in the aforesaid judgment are:-

“(a) If the executant of a document/deed wants to seek its annulment, then he is to seek cancellation of the same and to pay ad valorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the said document/deed.

(b) If an non-executant of a document/deed seeks annulment of a deed, then he is to seek declaration that the deed is invalid, non-est, illegal and is not binding upon him. He has to pay fixed Court fee as per Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act.

(c) If the non-executant of a document/deed is not in possession and he seeks not only a declaration of the deed/document to be illegal, but also seeks possession, then he has to pay ad valorem Court as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act and such valuation in case of immoveable property shall not be less than the value of property as calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act.”

The aforesaid principles as laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra) were followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh and others Vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 2014(1) ICC 1054.

8. If challenge to the document is made in the suit on the basis of fraud, then the view of the Courts was that since cancellation is sought on the basis of fraud having been practiced upon the plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. The same was also endorsed by the High Court in CR No.4067 of 2012 titled Dharam Singh and others Vs. M/s Omax Construction Ltd. decided on 12.03.2015. The said judgment was overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CA No.8880 of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) 16313 of 2015 titled M/s Omax Construction Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh and others decided on 26