Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1350 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

2009-08-07

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JudgmentJudgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 22.01.2004, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division ), Dasuya, vide which it accepted the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendants (now respondents) and directed the plaintiff (now revision petitioner), to affix the requisite advalorem Court fee, on the sale consideration of the sale deed. 2. The plaintiff (now revision petitioner) claimed that he was the owner of the property, in dispute. It was stated that he had not sold the suit land, vide sale deed dated 20.07.1996, set up by the defendants. It was further stated that the said sale deed was a forged and fabricated document, created by the defendants, at his back, by producing some impostor, in his place. It was further stated that he was entitled to possession of the land, in dispute, on the strength of his title. The plaintiff, thus, affixed the Court fee assessing the same on the land revenue. 3. An application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants (now respondents) that the plaintiff had sought possession of the land, in dispute, by challenging the genuineness and validity of the sale deed dated 20.07.1996, which was executed in their favour by him(plaintiff) for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It was further stated that the substance of the relief, which was sought by the plaintiff, was the cancellation of sale deed dated 20.07.1996 and, as such, he was required to pay the advalerum Court fee, on the sale consideration of the sale deed, and not on the basis of the land revenue, to which the land in dispute was assessed. That application was accepted by the Court below, vide its order dated 22.01.2004. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the plaintiff (now revision petitioner) never sought the cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not a party to the same, as some impostor was put up, in his place, and the sale deed, in question, was executed by him (imposter), in favour of the defendants. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the plaintiff (now revision petitioner) never sought the cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not a party to the same, as some impostor was put up, in his place, and the sale deed, in question, was executed by him (imposter), in favour of the defendants. He further submitted that he was not required to pay advalorem Court fee, on the sale consideration. He further submitted that it was for the plaintiff to claim the relief, as he desired, and, if he omitted to seek an essential relief with regard to the cancellation of the sale deed, and without which the relief sought by him, as framed, could not be allowed to him, at the most, his suit would be dismissed. He further submitted that, as such, the Court fee affixed by the plaintiff, on the plaint, in view of the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c), was correct. He further submitted that the order impugned suffers from patent illegality and, thus, was liable to be set aside. 6-A. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that for determining the question of payment of correct court fee, the court is required to look in the substance of relief sought for by the plaintiff. He further submitted that the substance of relief sought for by the plaintiff was the cancellation of the sale deed, and, as such, he was required to pay the advalorem court fee on the sale consideration. He further submitted that the order is legal. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision/petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to what should be the correct Court fee, to be affixed by the plaintiff, on the plaint, is required to see the substance of the relief, sought for by him and not merely the form of the same. It would be the substance of the relief, sought for and not the form, which will be the sole determining factor for the valuation and payment of Court fee. In the instant case, though the relief claimed by the plaintiff, was of possession of the property, claiming himself the owner thereof. It would be the substance of the relief, sought for and not the form, which will be the sole determining factor for the valuation and payment of Court fee. In the instant case, though the relief claimed by the plaintiff, was of possession of the property, claiming himself the owner thereof. His case was that he did not execute the sale deed dated 20.07.1996, in favour of the defendants, but some impostor was put up, in his place, who executed the same. It means that the relief in substance, which was sought by the plaintiff, was with regard to the cancellation of the sale deed. In the absence of the cancellation of the sale deed, the relief of possession could not be granted to the plaintiff, as claimed by him in the plaint. The Court, cannot act as a silent spectator, when a suit is filed. It is the duty of the Court, to go through the averments, contained in the plaint, to come to the conclusion, as to what relief, in substance had been sought. It is not required to only look into the form of the suit. The plaintiff may camouflage the form of the relief to evade the payment of requisite Court fee, but the substance thereof might be something else. Prima facie, the signatures of the plaintiff existed on the sale deed. It is yet to be finally proved, as to whether he executed the same or some impostor was put up, in his place. Therefore, it could not be finally concluded, at this stage, that the plaintiff had not executed the sale deed. The Court below, was thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that on account of the substance of relief sought for by the plaintiff regarding the cancellation of the sale deed, to which he was ex-facie a party, he was liable to pay the advalerom Court fee, on the sale consideration. 7-A. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner placed reliance on Kamleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh and others, 2002(1) C.C.C. 389 (S.C.), Sinder Singh alias Amarjit Singh and others v. Bhora Singh and others, (1978)80 P.L.R. 409 and Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 P.L.J. 423 in support of his contention, that the Court fee affixed by him was correct. 7-A. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner placed reliance on Kamleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh and others, 2002(1) C.C.C. 389 (S.C.), Sinder Singh alias Amarjit Singh and others v. Bhora Singh and others, (1978)80 P.L.R. 409 and Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 P.L.J. 423 in support of his contention, that the Court fee affixed by him was correct. The principle of law, laid down in Kamleshwar Kishore Singhs case (supra) was that it is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form, which will be the determining factor for valuation and payment of Court fee. It was further held that the defence taken in the written statement is not relevant for deciding the proper Court fee payable. In Sinder Singh alias Amarjit Singh and otherss case (supra) the plaintiff and two defendants were the owners of the property. Two defendants sold the property. The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession without seeking the cancellation of the sale deed. In these circumstances, it was held that the suit was liable to be valued at 10 times of the land revenue, as the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed. In Niranjan Kaurs case (supra), the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed got executed, was the result of fraud and, as such, not binding against his rights. It was, under these circumstances, that it was held that it could not be said that it was the suit for declaration with consequential relief, sought as to fall within the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. It was further held that the Court should look into the allegations made in the plaint, to find out the substantive relief asked for. It was further held that for a suit to fall under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, the main and substantive relief should be that of a declaration, and consequential relief, should be just ancillary thereto. No help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the ratio of law laid down, in the aforesaid cases. On the other hand, as stated above, the Court is required to look into the allegations, contained in the plaint, to come to the conclusion, that as to what relief, in substance, was sought for, and then determine, as to what Court fee, was required to be paid. On the other hand, as stated above, the Court is required to look into the allegations, contained in the plaint, to come to the conclusion, that as to what relief, in substance, was sought for, and then determine, as to what Court fee, was required to be paid. In the instant case, as stated above, the relief, in substance, sought was for cancellation of the sale deed, to which prima facie plaintiff was a party. Only after the cancellation of said sale deed, the plaintiff could become entitled to get possession of the property, in dispute. In this view of the matter, the order of the Court below, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 03.09.2009, at 10.00 AM positively.