The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fee for agricultural land and the distinction between seeking annulment of a deed and seeking a declaration that the deed is invalid, non-est, or not binding upon the non-executant.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby application filed by defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and petitioner has been directed to affix the ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of present revision petition are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is absolute owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas situated at Mauja Tajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad and defendants or any other person have got no right title or interest qua the same in any manner and that the impugned sale deed bearing document No.3660 dated 14.10.2013 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Tigaon, Faridabad, qua the suit property is wrong, illegal, null, void, ab initio, false and frivolous document and same is not binding upon the plaintiff in any manner with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Respondent-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that ad valorem court fee was required to be paid by the plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff filed reply to the said application and in the said application vide impugned order dated 18.12.2017, petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to pay the ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the above sale deed. Hence, present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has erred in law in not taking into consideration that the suit land is an agricultural land (chahi land) and court fee is payable as per the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 as amended in the State of Haryana and not on ad valorem basis. He further submitted that suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed on the ground that cheque issued in lieu of sale deed dated 14.10.2013 had been dishonoured, therefore, cancellation of the same did not amount to payment of consideration and, in fact, the sale deed was without consideration and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2018 (2) Law Herald 1042, Annpreet Kaur Khera vs. Akhtiar Singh and another, wherein this Court has made following observations:

“In the considered opinion of this Court, such direction issued by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the agriculture land measuring 51 kanals and 6 marlas and some construction over 18 marlas of land in the shape of house and 7 shops constructed separately. Learned counsel submits that as per the State amendment in Section 7 (IV) in case of agriculture land, the Court fee is payable on the basis of 10 time of the revenue payable and not on the value of the property or the sale deed. However, he admits that the Court fee shall be payable on the value of the property described under heading 'B' and 'C' in the plaint i.e. house and 7 shops.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order is legal and valid. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee and has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh @ others, which is relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (31) RCR (Civil) 709, Tarsem Singh and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others. The operative part of the judgment passed by the