In cases where non-executants seek declarations regarding deeds, they may need to pay fixed court fees, not ad valorem, provided they are not seeking possession.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.10.2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 , has been rejected.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of land measuring 92 Kanals 08 Marlas as fully described in the plaint. They also sought declaration that the alleged sale deeds, seven in number, executed by the defendant No.1-petitioner herein on the basis of a General Power of Attorney executed by Rachpal Singh were illegal, null, void and ineffective and are not binding on their rights. The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the plaint was that Rachpal Singh had executed a power of attorney on 24.12.2001 in favour of his sister i.e. defendant No.1-petitioner herein. Rachpal Singh died on 05.04.2008. Immediately thereafter, three sale deeds were executed by the defendant No.1-petitioner, who is none other than the sister of Rachpal Singh on 28.05.2008 in favour of her son and four sale deeds on 10.06.2008 again in favour of her son qua the total land measuring 92 Kanals 08 Marlas. It was the case set up in the plaint that after the death of Rachpal Singh in order to usurp the property, the sale deeds were executed by the defendant No.1-petitioner herein in favour of her son on the basis of general power of attorney executed by Rachpal Singh on 24.12.2001. The plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 laid a challenge to the sale deeds not being the executants. In the plaint there was no prayer for possession of the suit property. The defendant No.1-petitioner filed her written statement. In the written statement the stand taken was that the property had been sold and the entire sale consideration received from defendant No.2 (respondent No.5 herein) had already been paid to Rachpal Singh. Subsequently, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that ad valorem court fee had not been affixed. Vide the impugned order the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner would contend that the sale deeds were executed on the basis of a general power of attorney executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 who, hence, have stepped into the shoes of Rachpal Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the suit since challenge is to the sale deeds executed by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 through his general power of attorney holder they would be required to affix ad valorem court fees. In support of his arguments he has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Parkasho @ Parkash Kaur vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur & Ors. [2012 (24) RCR (Civil) 183] and Mandeep Kaur & Anr. vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. [CR-6930-2025 decided on 29.09.2025].

4. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 has contended that plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 are neither executants of the sale deeds nor have they sought possession and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randh