Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Manju Devi (Smt.) – Appellant
Versus
Manisha (Smt.) & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 680 of 2019
Decided On : 15-11-2023
For the Parties : Mr. Sudhir Rana, Mr. S.S. Khurana, Mr. Gulshan Nandwani
An executant seeking annulment of a sale deed must pay ad valorem court fee, applicable only to the proportion of property sold.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 31 and 34 - Court fee - Plaintiff challenged the sale deed dated 05.07.2017 alleging fraud - Court held that executants must pay ad valorem court fee if annulment is sought - Court fee payable only on proportionate property sold. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, one of the executants of the sale deed, alleged fraud and contested the requirement to pay ad valorem court fee on the entire sale consideration.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the plaintiff must pay the ad valorem court fee but only on the proportionate extent of the property sold.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff is liable to pay the full ad valorem court fee given the allegation of fraud and the nature of the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that an executant seeking annulment of a sale deed is required to pay the ad valorem court fee, but only for the portion of the property they sold.
Result: Revision petition disposed of directing payment of proportionate court fee.
Judgment
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The trial court has directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee on the amount of sale consideration of the sale deed dated 05.07.2017, as she is one of the executants of the sale deed and she has challenged the correctness thereof.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the plaintiff has alleged fraud and therefore, no court fee is payable. He further submits that the plaintiff alongwith certain other persons have executed a joint sale deed and the sale deed qua the plaintiff is only with respect to 4 kanals and 1 ½ marlas land and therefore, she can be asked to pay the proportionate ad valorem court fee.
3. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others : (2010) 12 SCC 112 the Court held that the executant is required to pay the ad valorem court fee if the annulment of the instrument including the sale deed is sought in the suit.
4. Similarly, a Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur vs. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127 has drawn a distinction between the suits filed under Section 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In fact, the executant of the sale deed is required to seek the annulment of the same.
5. Hence, the ad valorem court fee is payable by the plaintiff, however, there is some substance in the argument of the learned counsel that the plaintiff can be forced to pay the court fee only with respect to the extent of the property sold by her.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondent has no objection thereto. In these circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the plaintiff to deposit the ad valorem court fee, within a period of one month, from today, on the proportionate sale consideration of the sale deed dated 05.07.2017, i.e. with respect to 4 kanals and 1 ½ marlas land.
7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
