IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5563-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on :- 20.08.2025 Pronounced on:-26.08.2025 Rasampreet Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Gurbaksh Singh and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal in CS No. 271 of 2023, titled “Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh Singh and Another”, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defendants contended that court fee of ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250.

3. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ad valorem fee was payable.

4. The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had correctly valued the suit at ₹2,500 for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and paid court fee of ₹250, as the suit was one for declaration and injunction.

Findings of the Trial Court

5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was seeking declaration that the sale deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the possession of property and changing the nature of the property by raising construction.

6. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the trial Court observed that where a non-executant seeks cancellation of a document, he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration. However, if such non- executant is not in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, then ad valorem court fee on the market value or consideration is payable.

7. The Court recorded that in the present plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had pleaded ownership, but her possession over the suit land was disputed. She herself pleaded that the revenue record did not reflect her name and that mutations were not sanctioned in her favour. Further, the prayer clause included a permanent injunction against dispossession. These averments implied that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of possession, in substance the suit involved recovery of possession.

8. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the total consideration of ₹45,90,000 under Section 7(iv)(c)

read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and directed her to do so.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

9. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court had misread the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was the owner in possession. Defendant No. 1 had executed transfer deeds in her favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got executed the impugned sale deeds by taking defendant No. 1 to the Sub-Registrar under pretext of lease. The plaintiff continued in possession, and therefore she was only required to pay fixe