IMPORTANT POINT
Ad-valorem court fee could be claimed in cases where the cancellation of aide is sought as well as consequential relief is claimed. In present case, no prayer for cancellation of sale deed has been made.

A.N. Jindal, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, allowing the application under Section 7, Rule 11 CPC, preferred by respondent defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 7 (herein referred as ‘the defendant’) and directing the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinreferred as ‘the plaintiff’s ) to pay the ad valorem court fee on the value of the sale deeds, sought to be annulled by them.

2. The petitioners have challenged the sale deeds dated 22.7.2008, 18.7.2008 and 9.12.2002, which are for consideration of Rs.6,00,000, Rs.6,4l,500 and Rs. 6,00,000 respectively. The respondents have filed the application under Section 7, Rule 11 CPC for paying the ad-valorem court fee. The said application was accepted and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the requisite court fee on the consideration of the sale deeds.

3. Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed that the payment of Court fee originates from the pleadings, as set out by the plaintiffs and the relief claimed therein. The plaintiffs have claimed the suit property to be Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and they claimed themselves to be the coparceners and have prayed for passing of the decree for joint possession by way of annulment/ignoring the aforesaid sale deeds. It has also been pleaded that Mohinder Singh-defendant No.1 had sold the Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property without any legal necessity and benefit of the estate. In this situation, it appears that the trial Court has ordered the payment of ad-valorem court fee without going into the allegations, as set out in the plaint and the actual legal position for the following reasons:

(i) The plaintiffs have claimed declaration as well as joint possession over the suit property and no consequential relief has been claimed.

(ii) The plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale deed and they claim that the sale deeds are null and void inoperative and are liable to be ignored.

(iii) The plaintiffs have claimed their right on the ground that suit property is joint Hind\J Family Co-parcenary property .Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for brevity ‘the Act’) which relates to the Court fee reads as under:

Section 7 of the Act

Computation of fees payable in certain suits—The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

(i) xxxxxxxxxxx

(ii) xxxxxxxxxxx

(iii) xxxxxxxxxxx

(iv) In suits: —

(a) for moveable property of no market value for moveable property of no market value— for moveable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title,

(b) to enforce a right to share in joint family property to enforce a —right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property,

(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief—to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed,

(d) & (e) xxxxxxx xxx

(f) for Accounts: —

According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

5. In any case, as per provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, the ad-valorem Court fee could be claimed in cases where the cancellation of deed is sought as well as consequential relief is claimed but in this case the plaintiffs being not the party to the sale deeds have not sought for cancellation of the sale deeds but have sought for annulment of the same and they have also not sought any consequential relief. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. 2010(2) Apex Court Judgments 421 (SC), wherein it was observed as under:

“Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if non-executant seeks ann