The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of suit claims must comply with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, and the court has the authority to determine the real relief claimed in a suit for the purpose of assessing the court fee payable.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J. - Cm-23390-Cii/2019

2. This miscellaneous application is ordered and the Agreement to Sell dated 22.07.2016 is taken on record as Annexure P-5.

3. Civil Revision No. 848 of 2019

4. By order dated 05.11.2018, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (hereinafter, the trial Court ), directed the plaintiff in the suit, CS-426-2017, to pay ad valorem Court Fee as per rules. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this civil revision.

5. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. CS-426-2017 was filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers:-

'Suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement to sell dated 22.7.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant with respect to Kothi No. 14 double storey, which is constructed over an area measuring 9 Marla comprised in khewat/khatauni no. 625/1043 khasra no. 8137/6775/6236/4899/2/0-9 situated in Germany Dass Park Kapurthala which is bounded as under

East : 32 ft / passage 25 ft wide

West : 32 ft / plot no.15

North : 50 ft / passage 20 ft wide

South : 50 ft / Plot no.13

is deemed to have been cancelled for non payment of the part of the contract by defendant and earnest money paid under the said agreement stand forfeited and the plaintiff is not bound by the terms thereof in any manner whatsoever

AND

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any right over the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell in any manner whatsoever and forever,'

6. While so, the defendant in the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that proper Court Fee had not been paid by the plaintiff. It was his contention that the sale consideration fixed under the subject agreement was Rs.69,21,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem Court Fee thereon to the tune of Rs.1,60,072-50. Contesting this plea, the plaintiff asserted that he had only sought declaratory relief with regard to cancellation of the subject agreement and that he would not be liable to pay ad valorem Court Fee.

7. Upon considering the rival contentions, the trial Court opined that as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter, the Act of 1870 ), the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem Court Fee. To enable the plaintiff to do so, the trial Court adjourned the matter.

8. By order dated 05.02.2019 passed in this revision, this Court directed the trial Court not to insist upon payment of ad valorem Court Fee to proceed with the suit.

9. Perusal of the suit agreement dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) reflects that the plaintiff, being the owner of Kothi No.14 situated at Kapurthala, stated that he was in dire need of money and agreed to sell the said Kothi to the defendant for a total consideration of Rs.69,21,000/-. He acknowledged receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money. The agreement further recorded that the sale deed should be executed by 22.11.2016 but in case the plaintiff failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, he should give double the amount of earnest money to the defendant and in case the defendant failed to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated period, by giving the remaining amount, then the earnest money received by the plaintiff would stand forfeited and the agreement would stand cancelled. It is on the strength of the aforestated last referred statement recorded in the agreement that the plaintiff seeks a declaration to the effect that the suit agreement dated 22.07.2016 is deemed to have been cancelled for nonpayment of the balance sale consideration by the defendant within the time stipulated. It may also be noted that apart from the aforestated declaratory relief, the plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any right over the suit property on the strength of the suit agreement dated 22.07.2016.

10. Section 7(