JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a suit for declaration with joint possession and permanent injunction as consequential relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the suit it was averred that the defendant-petitioner herein had got a mutation sanctioned in his name on the basis of a family transfer dated 18.05.2016 alleged to have been executed by his father - Lal Singh. The transfer deed was challenged as being null and void, illegal, inoperative, ineffective and non-est qua the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 and proforma respondent Nos.5 to 8. It was further claimed that the property is ancestral in nature and Lal Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the property was transferred to the defendant-petitioner herein without any legal necessity. Written statement was filed. Subsequently, an application was filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the market value of the land was ?1,08,54,375/- as mentioned in the transfer deed. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that in the transfer deed the Collector rate of the property was mentioned and, therefore, ad valorem court fee ought to have been affixed and it was not payable as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that since the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 had sought possession, hence, ad valorem court fees would have to be affixed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur & Rani & Anr. Vs. Gurjit Singh & Ors. [CR No.422 of 2010 decided on 08.08.2014].

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner.

5. In the present case the suit had been filed for declaration by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the sisters of the defendant-petitioner herein, challenging a transfer deed alleged to have been executed by the father - Lal Singh - in favour of the defendant-petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has contended that since the value of the property was mentioned in the transfer deed, hence, ad valorem court fees ought to have been affixed. On a query by the Court as to whether the property had been purchased by the defendant-petitioner, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner candidly admits that it was not a case of purchase but a case of transfer. However, the value of the property was mentioned in the transfer deed. The suit is for declaration on the ground that the property is coparcenary property and the same had been transferred in favour of the defendant-petitioner without there being any legal necessity. It has further been candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that there is no reason which has been given in the transfer deed for transferring the entire property to the defendant-petitioner.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. [2010 (12) SCC 112] has held as under :

'6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustrati