Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition assails the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mansa, vide which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’) was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that respondent-plaintiff-Major Singh, who is the real brother of the petitioner-defendant-Baldev Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 16 Kanals 7 Marlas situated at Village Dhalewan, Tehsil and District Mansa (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) and that the petitioner-defendant had no concern with the same. The deed of transfer of ownership dated 08.03.2016 having been executed by the petitioner-defendant was stated to be illegal and the mutation dated 31.03.2016 sanctioned on the basis thereof was also stated to be illegal and both the transfer deed and the mutation were sought to be set aside.

3. It was the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant was not only the real brother of the respondent-plaintiff but was also his co-brother (two sisters having been married to both brothers). However, the petitioner-defendant executed a transfer deed dated 08.03.2016 which, according to the respondent-plaintiff was illegal and arbitrary and not binding upon his rights. Mutation sanctioned on the basis of the transfer deed was also said to be illegal and not binding upon his rights. The value of the suit for declaration for the purposes of jurisdiction was assessed at Rs.195/- Court fee of Rs.50/- was affixed. The value of the suit for permanent injunction was assessed at Rs.130/- and Court fee of Rs.50/- was also affixed for the same.

4. An application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant for rejection of the plaint. It was averred that the respondent-plaintiff had himself executed the transfer deed dated 08.03.2016 and had thereafter, challenged it himself. The value of the land was mentioned at Rs.13,00,000/- in the said transfer deed. It was, therefore, averred that ad valorem Court fee was required to be affixed and since the same had not been affixed, the plaint deserved to be rejected.

5. The application was opposed by way of a reply in which it was averred that the deed of transfer had not been executed by the respondent-plaintiff with his consent and that the same was the result of a mis-statement, cheating and fraud. It was averred that he had not received any amount through the deed of transfer and, therefore, he was not bound to affix the Court fee on the value of the consideration of the deed of transfer of ownership.

6. The trial Court dismissed the application by way of the impugned order holding that adequate Court fee had been affixed by the respondent-plaintiff, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Initiating arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the transfer had been done for consideration but with a view to avoid the payment of stamp duty, only the transfer deed had been executed. Learned counsel submitted that there was no reference in the plaint that there was no consideration in th