CR-996-2017 (O&M)

[ 1 ]

201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-996-2017 (O&M)

Date of Reserve: 04.05.2022

Date of Pronouncement: 16.05.2022

Kaushalya Devi @ Kaushalya Bhaskar ( since deceased)

through her LRs .....................................................Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Nirmal Bhardwaj and others ...................... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

...

Present:

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S.Momi, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the

order dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to pay

ad-valorem court fee in a suit for declaration and consequential relief of

permanent injunction which had been instituted by her against the

respondents/defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

erred in directing the petitioner to affix ad-valorem Court fee with the plaint

as the same would have been payable only when cancellation of a registered

deed along with possession of the property was prayed for. Learned counsel

while drawing the attention of this court to the prayer clause of the plaint

submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner is declaratory in nature,

therefore, the relief was rightly valued and appropriate court fee was

RUPINDER KAUR

2022.05.16 18:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-996-2017 (O&M)

[ 2 ]

ordered to be affixed. He further submits that ad-valorem court fee is to be

paid on the consideration amount mentioned in a deed. However, no

consideration amount is involved in a gift deed. Thus, ad-valorem court fee

would not be payable.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while

vehemently opposing the submissions made by the counsel opposite,

submits that as the relief prayed for in the plaint is for declaration along

with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the petitioner was bound

to pay ad-valorem court fee as per the market value of the property in view

of the proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act as applicable to the

States of Punjab and Haryana. He submits that the question of sale

consideration in case of a gift deed would be of no relevance as only market

value of the property has to be considered for assessing ad-valorem court

fee. Learned counsel still further submits that since the petitioner is also

seeking to set aside a Sale Deed No. ..............., therefore she would be

bound to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration amount as stated in

the sale deed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record.

It would be relevant to observe here that when a party to a deed

seeks its annulment, it will have to necessarily seek its cancellation as well.

However, when a person who is seeking annulment of a deed is not a party

thereto, he/she will have no other option but to seek a declaration to the

effect that the deed was invalid and not binding upon him/her.

It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding the

question of court fee, the Court must look into the averments made in the

RUPINDER KAUR

2022.05.16 18:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-996-2017 (O&M)

[ 3 ]

plaint to ascertain the substantive relief prayed for. In order to avoid

payment of ad-valorem court fee many a times a relief may be couched in

the form of some other relief, on which ad-valorem court fee would not be

payable, through clever drafting of the plaint. Therefore, the Courts must

not restrict their query only to the prayer clause of the plaint.

Since the form of relief sought for, is different for a party to

the deed and a 3rd party, the court fee payable for such relief would also

vary a