Executants of sale deeds seeking annulment must pay ad valorem Court fee based on total consideration, as opposed to non-executants seeking mere declarations.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 03.07.2018, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed at the instance of the respondents-defendants, was allowed.

2. The material facts, as culled from the paperbook are as follows:-

That, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Satvir had filed a suit for seeking declaration and permanent injunction, as consequential relief. He asserted himself to be owner-in-possession of the agricultural land, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-1. He had approached respondent-defendant No.1 for sale of the agricultural land, who had further facilitated the sale of the land, in favour of respondents- defendants No.2 and 3, for a sale consideration of Rs.62,50,000/-. It was settled that respondent No.1 shall pay the sale consideration to him at the house and respondent No.1, knowingly and intentionally executed sale deeds in favour of respondents No.2 and 3.

3. Furthermore, the sale deeds were executed on 24.12.2015 and since the sale consideration was a big amount, the respondents-defendants had agreed to pay the said sale consideration to the petitioner-plaintiff at home and the petitioner, believing the words of the respondents, had executed sale deed bearing No.4746, in favour of respondent No.3 and sale deed No.4745 in favour of respondent No.2, on 24.12.2015. Thereafter, the consideration amount was not paid. It was only an amount of Rs.19,50,000/-, which was deposited in the account of the petitioner and the residue amount of Rs.43 lakh, was never paid.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondents-defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thereby, seeking rejection of the plaint, on account of deficient Court fee or in the alternative, for issuance of direction to the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the ad valorem Court fee.

5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned order, learned trial Court, while placing reliance upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh , 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 564, had concluded that the petitioner- plaintiff is liable to affix ad valorem Court fee, on the sale consideration, as mentioned in both the sale deeds, amounting to Rs.62,50,000/- and thus, on these terms, had allowed the application.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

7. In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondents made appearance.

8. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

9. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is owner-in-possession of the suit land and it was with the fraudulent intention that the sale deeds were got executed, without passing of the sale consideration on the pretext that the same shall be paid at home, as it was huge amount.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that learned trial Court has appropriately considered the sale deeds in question and had directed to pay ad valorem Court fee. Also, it is submitted that the said suit has since been decided and the question of fixation of Court fee has been left open, subject to the decision of the revision petition in hand. Also, it is brought to the notice of the Court that appeal bearing CA No. 288 of 2019, titled Smt. Maya Devi vs. Satvir and others was also filed and the same has also been dismissed being infructuous, on account of non-payment of Court fee, with the clause of revival of the same.

11. The limited question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is liable to affix ad valorem Court fee, on the sale consideration, as mentioned in both the sale