- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P4) whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jalandhar has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the respondent-defendants for rejection of the plaint and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to fix ad valorem Court fee before 16.10.2014. The reasoning of the Court, as per the said order, which is subject matter of challenge is that plaintiff-petitioner being the owner of the land was challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No.4, being his attorney of the land measuring 61.5 marlas and was seeking the relief of possession.
(2.) As per the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for declaration, he was the lawful owner of the land/property measuring 61.5 marlas, situated at Village Lamba Pind, Tehsil & District Jalandhar. Challenge was also laid to the sale deed dated 21.04.2008, allegedly executed by defendant No.4, Kashmira Singh on behalf of defendant No.3 and the plaintiff, being the attorney. The petitioner had also asked for possession of the property apart from various other reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction etc.
(3.) The Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, 2010 12 SCC 112 has cleared all the controversy regarding affixation of Court fees on ad valorem basis or a fixed value under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, the 'Act'). It has been held that where an executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to pay ad valorem Court fees and especially if possession is also being sought. Relevant observation read as under: "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 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 6under 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 7.";