Plaintiffs, as executants of sale deeds, are required to seek cancellation of the deeds and affix ad-valorem court-fee as per the sale consideration mentioned in the deeds, even when seeking a declaration with consequential relief.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner (arrayed as plaintiff No.5 in the Civil Suit) has assailed the order dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal (for short, 'the trial Court') whereby the application (Annexure P-2) moved by respondents No.1 to 6-defendants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendants') under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-affixation of the proper court-fee on the same, has been allowed and the plaintiffs have been directed to pay the ad- valorem court-fee on the sale consideration of both the sale deeds under challenge, while observing that otherwise, their plaint would be rejected.

2. The petitioner and plaintiffs No.1 to 4-performa respondents No.7 to 10 (here-in-after to be referred as 'the performa respondents'), have filed a civil suit against the defendants for seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that two sale deeds dated 08.02.2017 and the mutations entered and sanctioned on the basis thereof, are illegal, null and void and the same are not binding upon their rights, while further praying for the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the said land. The defendants filed the above- said application which has been allowed vide the impugned order, as discussed in the opening para of this judgment.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner in the present revision petition and have perused the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the civil suit, the petitioner and the performa respondents, i.e her co-plaintiffs, have not claimed the relief of possession of the suit land and they have merely sought the decree for the afore-referred declaration along-with the consequential relief of permanent injunction and in these circumstances, the present matter squarely falls within the ambit of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Act of 1870') and it being so, the petitioner and the performa respondents were not required to affix the ad-valorem court-fee on the plaint as per the sale consideration mentioned in both the above-said sale deeds and therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.

5. However, the afore-raised contention is devoid of any merit because as per the averments canvassed in the plaint and as is also revealed from the bare perusal of the photostat copies of both the sale deeds in question, these sale deeds were executed by performa respondent No. 7- plaintiff No.1 on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioner and her co-plaintiffs No.2 to 4-performa respondents No.8 to 10, being their Attorney and thus, she (performa respondent No.7), along-with the petitioner and performa-defendants No.8 to 10, was the executant of these sale deeds. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Versus Randhir Singh and others 2010(2)R.C.R .(Civil)564, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held as under:-

"6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' -- two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form