IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119 Date of Decision:-27.10.2025 VIJAYPAL … Petitioner Versus MAMTA AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC” for short), and has consequently directed the petitioner-plaintiff to affix ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deed.

2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the suit property being agricultural land, the valuation for the purposes of court fee is governed by Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Accordingly, the maximum court fee payable is ten times the annual land revenue, and not ad-valorem on the sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deed. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in ‘Sonu v. Mrs. Usha Devi and Another, 2024(1) RCR (Civil) 647’, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench held that in respect of agricultural land, court fee is payable on the basis of ten times the land revenue, and not on the market value or the sale consideration of the property.

2.1. In the cited case, the sale transaction had failed and the cheque issued towards payment of the sale consideration was dishonoured. In contrast, in the present case, the petitioner has challenged the sale deed on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, alleging that his signatures were obtained on blank papers at the time of advancement of a loan of ₹

2,00,000/-, and that he never appeared before the Sub-Registrar for execution or registration of the impugned sale deed.

2.2. Furthermore, regarding the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee, the petitioner-plaintiff has specifically averred in paragraph No.

8 of the plaint as under:-

“8. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is assessed Rs.200/-, over which a court fee of Rs. 50/-

has been affixed and paid alongwith the plaint.”

4. In the present case, the petitioner has not, at any stage, pleaded that the court fee is liable to be computed on the basis of the land revenue assessed or payable in respect of the suit property. Instead, the petitioner has affixed court fee treating the suit as one seeking a mere declaration. However, the nature of the pleadings and the relief claimed clearly bring the case within the ambit of the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564. In the said authoritative pronouncement, the Apex Court categorically held that where an executant of a sale deed seeks its cancellation, ad-valorem court fee is payable on the consideration mentioned in the document, whereas a non-executant seeking only declaratory relief is required to pay a fixed court fee. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced here-in-below:-

7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the co- parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the Court fee was computable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial Court and the High Court were therefore, not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore, Court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds."

In view of the said example given an example in para No. 6 of the judgment and the finding rec