Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2158 (PNJ)

Yuv Raj v. Balwant Singh

2006-05-16

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.9.2005 vide which application moved by the petitioners-defendants for rejecting plaint on the ground of deficiency of court-fee has been rejected. 2. The facts, is not brief, art that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed dated 21.7.2004 as well as mutation No. 423 dated 30.9.2004 in favour of defendant No. 2 being null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and further seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The petitioners-defendants filed an application in the said suit seeking rejection of plaint on the round that proper-court-fee had not been affixed. The consideration for sale-deed is stated to be Rs. 2,92,500/-. However, the market price of the land is not less than Rs. 8 lacs. Hence the plaintiffs are to affix the court-fee as per the market price of the land. It is pleaded that respondents-plaintiffs have affixed only Rs. 25/- as court-fee which is not properly valued. The application moved by the petitioners-defendants was opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that they have sought cancellation of a sale-deed being void, ab initio on the ground that no such transaction took place on the alleged date. The respondents-plaintiffs further stated that market value of the property was only Rs. 10,000/- in the year 1994 and its present market value would not be more than Rs. 50,000/-. The application moved by the petitioners-defendants was rejected by the trial Court holding that respondents second relief in the plaint is a consequential relief and not substantive one and as soon as the respondents would be declared entitled for the main relief, the second relief would die its own death. Therefore, the respondents are not required to pay the ad valorem court-fee. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. It is argued that where a suit for declaration is filed to the effect that sale-deed executed by other party is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. It is argued that where a suit for declaration is filed to the effect that sale-deed executed by other party is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration. In support, the learned Counsel referred to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2384 as well as a single Bench decision of this Court in Himanshu v. Smt. Kailash Rani and Anr. (2004-3) 138 P.L.R. 513. Learned Counsel also referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur (1982) 84 P.L.R. 127 (F.B.) wherein it is held that where a suit has been Filed for declaration that the sale-deed executed by the plaintiffs father was without legal necessity or without consideration, etc. and was illegal and void and not binding on the rights o the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are required to pay ad valorem court-fee as per sale consideration in the sale-deed as there is a challenge to the validity of sale only. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs are seeking decree of declaration on the basis of sale consideration which took place in the year 1994 and if plaintiffs right is established on the ground of earlier sale transaction, then the subsequent sale transaction will become null and void, whereas, the defendants are contesting the suit on the basis of subsequent transaction which took place on 21.7.2004. Therefore, the court-fee as required under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870 (in short the Act) is required to be paid. 5. It is well settled that while deciding the question of court-fee, the Court should look into the averments made in the plaint to find out as to what substantive relief the plaintiff is seeking mere statute drafting cannot be taken while deciding this issue. Where main claim is that of cancellation of deed and declaration, if any, is merely surplus age, the case would not be covered under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. 6. To my mind, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs is without any force. Where main claim is that of cancellation of deed and declaration, if any, is merely surplus age, the case would not be covered under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. 6. To my mind, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs is without any force. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaurs case (supra) as well as in other Judgments as referred to above, the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed, as by filing the suit for declaration the plaintiffs are seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated 21.7.2004 executed by he defendants and mutation No. 4230 dated 30.9.2004, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction against respondents. In order to bring the case under the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, the main and substantive relief should be that of declaration and consequential relief should be ancillary. Merely an averment that the sale-deed was void being got executed as a result of fraud and not binding on the plaintiffs, does not convert the suit into one for declaration with consequential relief of possession so as to fall within the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. To such a suit, only the provisions of Article 1, Schedule I of the Act would be applicable. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside.