IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 25, 2025 Chaudhary Devinder Singh @ Devinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Balbir Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Anurag Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

04.03.2021 passed by learned trial Court, thereby, allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, with a direction to the petitioner-plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee with the plaint, as per sale consideration of the sale deed in question, failing which, the plaint shall be liable to be rejected.

The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed bearing No.2565/1 dated 20.01.2009 and sale deed No.110 dated 20.04.2009, are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff and the impugned judgment and decree passed in civil suit is also wrong, erroneous and not binding upon the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff.

Besides the same, also further claimed a decree for possession to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land, as detailed in paragraph No.1.

Respondent-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that the proper Court fee has not been affixed.

As noticed above, learned trial Court vide order dated

04.03.2021 had directed the petitioner-plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee, on the sale consideration of the sale deeds in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner heard and with his able assistance, gone through the assertions made in the plaint, copy whereof, has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

It is admitted position on the record that the petitioner-plaintiff was not party to the questioned sale deeds dated 20.01.2009 and 20.04.2009. It is the respondent No.2-Jasbir Singh, father of the petitioner-plaintiff, who had executed the sale deeds. The copies of the sale deeds have also been placed on record. Close perusal of the plaint reveals that petitioner-plaintiff had asserted about the property to be joint Hindu Family, ancestral coparcenary property and his father had no right to sell the land of the Joint Hindu Family, as he was only Karta. In the given circumstances, he has challenged the sale deeds in question.

Obviously, considering the assertion about the land sold to be ancestral Joint Hindu Family property, the petitioner-plaintiff has a right in the same. In such a situation, it is well settled that if the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deeds or they are not executant, then the plaintiffs are not required to seeking cancellation of the sale deeds. The suit for declaration to the effect that such sale deeds are not binding on the right of the plaintiff, is certainly maintainable and therefore, the plaintiff is not required to affix ad valorem Court fee, on the sale consideration because he was not party to the sale deeds in question.

In this regard, beneficial reference is made to Suhrid Singh @

Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, as herein given:-

“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 execut