Lovepreet Singh & ANR. v. Ramesh Kumar

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 13.09.2017 Lovepreet Singh and another .....Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh Kumar .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of impugned order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhuri, whereby the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for payment of ad-valorem Court fee, has been dismissed. Perusal of impugned order shows that the sale deed in question has been executed by the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property. In this regard, reference has been made by the Court to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh &

-2Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564', whereby the Apex Court has allowed the appeals and in paragraph No.6 it was held that:- "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 non- est/ 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 ad-valorem 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 ad-valorem 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.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the judgment/record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective. Accordingly, no

-3interference is warranted in the impugned order. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. ( RITU BAHRI ) September 13, 2017 JUDGE naresh.k Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No