Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1194 (PNJ)

Krishna Devi v. Jaswant Singh

2006-03-21

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.7.2004, whereby the plaintiffs were directed to pay ad valorem Court fee in respect of the sale consideration of the sale-deed i.e. Rs. 75,000/-. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration challenging the order passed by the learned Registrar, Hoshiarpur as well as the sale-deed dated 30.5.1994 and also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and for getting the sale registered. 3. The learned trial Court found that since the challenge is to the sale- deed, therefore, the plaintiffs must pay the ad valorem Court-fee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not sought consequential relief for possession in a suit for declaration and, therefore, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 Punjab Law Reporter 127 would not be applicable. It is contended that only when possession is claimed as a consequential relief, the ad valorem Court-fee is required to be paid as contemplated under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. Since, the plaintiff is in possession, therefore, no ad valorem Court-fee is required to be affixed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of this Court, to contend that the plaintiffs are a party to the sale-deed and, therefore, the plaintiffs are required to affix ad valorem Court-fee. It is also contended that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the suit for declaration simplicitor is not maintainable. 6. It is well settled that for the purposes of determining the question of Court-fee, the averments made in the plaint alone are required to be considered. In view of the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiffs have not asked for consequential relief of possession, therefore, the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid authority, cannot be extended to the facts of the present case. 7. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the learned trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee is set aside. Petition allowed.