JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - C.M.No.27116-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexure P6. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.25379-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6409 of 2011 2. Petitioners-defendants have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 29.7.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, in Civil Suit No.220 dated 26.10.2010. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed by respondent plaintiff for a decree for joint possession as owner of the agricultural land, duly described in the heading of the plaint on the plea that transfer deed bearing Vasika No.2002 dated 10.9.2007 and Will dated 13.12.2006 as claimed by defendants, allegedly executed by late Randhir Singh is illegal, null and void. The dispute is regarding estate of Randhir Singh, father of respondent-plaintiff. Present petitioners are also other natural heirs of Randhir Singh and they are also claiming Will in their favour and also claiming rights in the property by virtue of transfer deed, allegedly executed by Randhir Singh in their favour. 4. An application was filed by present petitioners-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before learned trial Court for rejection of the plaint on the ground that respondent-plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the land in dispute which as per transfer deed is Rs.1,08,75,000/-. The said application was dismissed on the ground that it is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be taken into consideration only after leading evidence. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that as respondent-plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the land in dispute, she is required to pay ad valorem Court fee under Section 7(iv)(d) of Court Fee Act, 1870, (for short ‘the Act’). 6. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that as respondent-plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the land in dispute, she is required to pay ad valorem Court fee under Section 7(iv)(d) of Court Fee Act, 1870, (for short ‘the Act’). 6. Law on the point has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 : 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1356 (SC)] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564: 2010(2) RAJ 436: 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 510 (SC), relevant paragraphs of which read as under:- “5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab (`Act’ for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs.19/50 on plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which provides : “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits : The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows : (iv) in suits - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought: Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees. In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought: Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section.” The second proviso to section 7(iv) of the Act will apply in this case and the valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of the said section. Clause (v) provides that where the relief is in regard to agricultural lands, court fee should be reckoned with reference to the revenue payable under clauses (a) to (d) thereof; and where the relief is in regard to the houses, court fee shall be on the market value of the houses, under clause (e) thereof. 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 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 nonest/ 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 advalorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. 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 advalorem 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 advalorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.” 7. In the present case, respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the transfer deed sought to be cancelled. The property in dispute is agricultural land. However, she has also sought joint possession alongwith other coowners. Hence, the present case as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case (supra) is of a person, who is non-executant and is not in possession and seeking not only declaration and also consequential relief of possession. Hence, respondentplaintiff is to pay ad valorem Court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, i.e., the Court fee is to be computed on the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ------------