JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-1, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner had been directed to affix the ad-valorem court fee.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the registered sale deed dated 16.03.2012 executed by defendant no.2, as attorney of the present petitioner-plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1, who is sister of defendant no.2 and daughter-in-law of the present petitioner-plaintiff. It is submitted that defendant no.1 by misrepresenting facts and stating to the plaintiff that only for the purpose of management of the properties of the plaintiff a special power of attorney dated 17.02.2012 be executed in favour of defendant no.2, but actually got executed the power of attorney in which the right to transfer etc. was also given. It is submitted that since the special power of attorney had been taken from the present petitioner by misrepresenting facts and the subsequent sale deed was executed on the basis of the said special power of attorney, thus, no ad-valorem court fee was required to be affixed on the plaint by the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 vide which the petitioner had been asked to pay ad-valorem court fee is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the present petition being merit-less deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 08.01.2019 had observed that since the sale deed dated 16.03.2012 had been executed by defendant no.2 as attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 and the said sale deed was sought to be challenged in the present suit, thus, the plaintiff was required to affix ad-valorem court fee upon the face value of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. It was observed that the execution of the sale deed through an attorney would make the plaintiff himself an executant of the sale deed, as the act of the agent or attorney is considered to be act done by the master himself. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors reported as 2010(12) SCC 112, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'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 illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' - two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If 'B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sal