Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009

1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009

Date of Decision: 26.8.2011

Krishan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Harpal Singh and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate

for the respondents.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

In the present revision petition, order dated 5.11.2009

(Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurgaon, has been assailed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay

ad valorem Court fee on the basis of sale consideration reflected in the

impugned sale deed within a period of 15 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case defendant No.5 to the suit namely Smt. Kamlesh had

executed a sale deed in favour of Harpal Singh and Om Pal Singh,

defendants No.8 and 9, respectively. Learned counsel further submits

that the plaintiff had sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed is

wrong, illegal, invalid and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009

2

Furthermore, the following prayer of consequential relief was also

made:-

“14...With consequential relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from

dispossessing the plaintiffs from the same illegally

and forcibly and from alienating the suit land in any

manner, may kindly be passed in favour of the

plaintiffs and against the defendant, with costs. Any

other relief deemed proper by the Hon'ble Court

may also please be granted. In the alternative, if the

defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiffs,

then the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of possession

of the land mentioned above in this para of the

plaint...”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dara Singh v. Gurbachan

Singh and Others (Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009 (O&M) decided on

3.5.2010. The Division Bench has relied upon paragraph No. 6 of the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh alias

Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others 2010(2) Recent Civil

Reports 564. It will be apposite here to reproduce paragraph No. 6 of

the above said judgment:-

“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

Civil Revision No. 7027 of 2009

3

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 executed by `A' is invalid/void and non- est/

illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both

may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared

as non-binding. But the form is different and court

fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed,

seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-

valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the

sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in

possession and sues for a declaration that the deed

is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he

has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50

under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act.

But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession,

and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale

deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of

possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee

Civil Revisi