A non-executant plaintiff seeking declaration and possession must pay court fees under Sections 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, not based on the transfer deed's market value.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J.

1. The present petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide which the application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to affix ad valorem court fee as per the value of the suit property.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the petitioner-plaintiff (Jagat Singh) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner to the extent of 1/3^rd share of the suit land (fully described in the plaint), situated in Village Roshanpur, Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala. A further declaration was also sought that the transfer of ownership deed dated 27.10.2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as regards the suit land was illegal, null and void and was liable to be cancelled. Relief of possession as regards the suit land was also sought alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order VII Rule XI CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved. It was averred that since transfer deed dated 27.10.2014 had been challenged, Court fee on the value of the land i.e. Rs.41,55,000/- as depicted in the transfer deed was to be paid.

4. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4) in which the averments made in the application were denied.

5. By way of the impugned order dated 10.11.2021, the application was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to affix ad valorem court fee as per the value of the suit property as mentioned in the transfer deed failing which the plaint would be deemed to have been rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in holding that ad valorem court fee was payable on the value of the suit property as mentioned in the transfer deed. He submits that since the petitioner was not the executant of the transfer deed and was not in possession, he would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee but in terms of the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (c) and (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court Fees Act’) and not as per the value of the suit land as mentioned in the transfer deed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Shefali Grover vs. Pawan Grover , 2023 (4) Law Herald 2741 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2404294, Baldev Singh vs. Major Singh , 2023 (4) Law Herald 2691 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2404236 and Dharinder Singh and others vs. Anoopjot Kaur and others , 2025 (2) Law Herald 1063 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2710964.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that in terms of the provisions of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, ad valorem Court fee as per the value of the suit land as mentioned in the transfer deed would be payable. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court and the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Baldev Singh vs. Major Singh , 2023 (4) Law Herald 2691 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2404236, Nachhatar Singh (Deceased through LRs.) vs. Atma Singh and another, 2019 AIR (P&H) 43 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1381851, Harbans Kaur vs. Amrik Singh @ Beer Singh , 2015 (4) Law Herald 3088 : Law Finder Doc Id # 710926, Chandro vs. Randhip Mann and others , 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 1028 : Law Finder Doc Id # 765518 and Narinder Iqbal Singh vs. Sarabjit Kaur , 2024 (2) Law Herald 1630 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2633638.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10(i). It is well settled that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule XI CPC, only the contents of the pla