IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION No.2930 of 2015 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2021

Sumer Singh alias Sumer Chand and another

…..Petitioners

versus

Sher Singh and another

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners

Mr. Parminder Singh Advocate for the respondents

ALKA SARIN, J.:

Heard through video conferencing.

The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 11.03.2015

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal,

whereby the plaintiff-petitioners have been directed to affix ad valorem

court fee on the plaint. The said order has been passed on an application

filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908.

PARKASH CHAND

2021.12.14 14:23

I attest to the accuracy of

this document

CR-2930-2015

- 2 -

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration with possession and

consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint

that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-respondents are real brothers

and that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-respondents had jointly

purchased land measuring 30 marlas from their joint income. However, the

defendant-respondents had not got the sale deeds registered in the names of

the plaintiff-petitioners. The prayer in the suit was for the issuance of a

decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioners are owners

of land measuring 15 marlas out of 30 marlas of land with consequential

relief of possession.

The defendant-respondents filed an application under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3) for rejection of the plaint on the ground that

the plaintiff-petitioners ought to have affixed ad valorem Court fee on the

market value of the property. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a reply

(Annexure P-4) to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated

11.03.2015 (Annexure P-1) the Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioners

to affix ad valorem court fee on the plaint. Hence, the present civil revision

petition.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has contended

that the plaintiff-petitioners have affixed court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) of

the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) and would

not be liable to affix ad valorem court fee as per the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir

Singh & Ors. [AIR 2010 SC 2807]. The learned counsel further contended

PARKASH CHAND

2021.12.14 14:23

I attest to the accuracy of

this document

CR-2930-2015

- 3 -

that the plaintiff-petitioners have not challenged the sale deed but are only

seeking joint possession in the suit property since the suit land, though

purchased jointly from the joint income, the sale deed qua the same had

been registered only in the name of the defendant-respondents.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents

has contended that the plaintiff-petitioners would be required to pay ad

valorem court fee in as much as the plaintiff-petitioners being non-

executants and not in possession have not only sought a declaration but

have also sought a consequential relief of possession and, therefore, they

have to affix ad valorem court fee. To buttress his argument the learned

counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Prem Wati vs.

Jule Khan & Ors. [CR. No.1686 of 2018 decided on 04.04.2019].

Heard.

In the present case, the limited question that arises for

consideration is - What is the court fee payable in regard to the prayer for

declaration that the plaintiff-petitioners are the joint owners of the suit

property and for the consequential relief of possession and injunction ?

Section 7 of the Act reads as under :

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits -