IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.7282 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.12.2012

Major Singh

...Petitioner

versus

Jagjit Singh and another

....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

----

Present:

Ms. Veerpal Kaur, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

----

1.

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ? No.

2.

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

----

K.Kannan, J.

1.

The revision is against the order passed by the trial

Court finding that the court fee paid was insufficient and directing

the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the land for

the property covered under the sale deed which was challenged as

having been brought about by practicing fraud on the plaintiff. The

plaintiff himself was a party to the document dated 15.09.2011 and

the court below was upholding the objection taken by the defendant

that since the plaintiff himself was a party to the document, he was

required to set it aside and pay ad valorem court fee. In so doing, the

Civil Revision No.7282 of 2012 (O&M)

- 2 -

trial Court was relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in

Suhrid Singh @ Sardul Singh Versus Randhir Singh and others-

(2010) 2 Civil Court Cases 510.

2.

The petitioner is the father of the defendant and the

contention on his behalf is that in terms of the notification issued by

the Government of Punjab on 21.12.2001, the stamp duty chargeable

in case of transaction of transfer by owner of agricultural land and

rural residential property to Class-I heirs as specified under Section

8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is remitted and, therefore, ad

valorem court fee is not payable.

3.

In my view, the reference to the notification issued on

21.12.2001 is wholly irrelevant. The stamp duty under the Stamp

Act for registering a document is not the same as a document that is

required to be set aside on a plea that the document was invalid and

vitiated by the circumstance of fraud. The determination of stamp

duty under the Stamp Act will not necessarily govern the issue of

court fee payable under the Court Fees Act. Under Section 7 of the

Court Fees Act, relevant consideration is only whether the

immovable property covered under the registered instrument has a

market value or not. If the property is land and has a market value

but assessed to land revenue, the market value shall be assessed on

the basis of land revenue and the court fee paid there on after

ascertaining the valuation secured on such basis. The trial Court was

Civil Revision No.7282 of 2012 (O&M)

- 3 -

justified in directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on

the market value so assessed. The term ad valorem is derived from

the Latin ad valentiam, meaning “to the value”, as opposed to the

fixed court fee or a notional valuation. The market valuation

depends on the method of determination prescribed in the court fees

act or any of the government notification prescribing the method and

on such valuation, court fee shall be affixed at the percentage

prescribed.

4.

With these observations the civil revision is disposed of .

(K.KANNAN)

JUDGE

26.12.2012

sanjeev