Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Charitable Hospital, Dayanand Nabha, Bhikhi Mor Nabha & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Joginder Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision No. 5074 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.31, S.34
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The respondents filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.08.2014 executed by the petitioner-Trust is in violation of a gift deed. The trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint for non-deposit of ad valorem court fee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents are not executants of the sale deed and thus must file under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs, as non-executants, were required to pay ad valorem court fee for the suit filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-executants must file for a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act instead of seeking cancellation under Section 31, emphasizing the distinction highlighted in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
For the Parties : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Mr. Saurabh Kaushik
Judgment
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The respondents have filed a suit for the grant of decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 22.08.2014, was executed by the petitioner-Trust is in violation of the gift deed. An application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have not deposited the ad valorem court fee, has been dismissed by the trial Court. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the Trust on 22.08.2014. He submits that in such suit, the ad valorem court fee is payable.
3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. Admittedly, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) are not the executants of the aforesaid sale deed. There is a difference in a suit filed by the executant for annulment/cancellation of the registered instrument. Such suits are governed by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1963 Act”). However, if a non-executant wishes to claim that the instrument is bad due to any other reason, then he is required to file a suit for the grant of a decree of declaration as provided under Section 34 of the 1963 Act. A full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 427 noticed this distinction.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
