AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.) THROUGH this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari vide which they have been directed to affix ad valorem Court fee on the sale deed executed by the contesting defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of contesting respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are Gair Marusi tenants in the agricultural land measuring 8 kanals. They are holding the possession of the land in question which was owned by Sandeep Kumar and Kanta Devi-defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively. They prayed that the sale deed executed by Sandeep Kumar and Kanta Devi-defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared as not binding on the rights of the petitioners-plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for a direction to the plaintiffs to affix ad valorem Court fee on the value of the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed has been challenged in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioners filed reply to the said application praying therein that an order of restraint against defendant No. 1 not to interfere in the possession of the land, be passed. It was further contended by them that they are not party to the sale-deed and as such were not required to affix ad valorem Court fee on the suit. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.7.2007 and in the light of proviso under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 15 days' time was granted to the plaintiff-petitioners to affix the ad valorem Court fee. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the plaintiff-petitioners are not a party of the sale-deed and they are Gair Marusi tenants and, therefore, hold the possession of the land in question since long without any enhancement of rent and have only prayed for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 4 are owners in possession of the land which is the subject matter of the suit in equal share and they are entitled to get mutated their names in the revenue record and the sale deed of the land measuring 8 kanals purchased by defendant No. 1 from defendants No. 2 and 3 is not binding upon the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 4 and that the mutation No. 830 of village Ballawas, Tehsil Bawal sanctioned on 16.9.2005 by Assistant Collector, I Grade, Bawal, be cancelled. A decree for permanent injunction be issued, restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 4 on the land measuring 8 kanals which is the subject matter of the suit and defendant No. l be also restrained from taking forcible possession of the land for all times to come. On the basis of these submissions, counsel submits that the petitioner-plaintiffs were not required to affix ad valorem Court fee. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar, 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 1 to contend that since the petitioners are not a party to the sale deed, they are not bound by the acts of the third party and, as such are not required to pay the ad valorem Court fee. Another contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiff-petitioners had filed the suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed by the defendants is null and void because the land in question was in possession of the petitioners. He further submits that assuming the petitioners were required to pay the-ad valorem Court fee then also the land being of agricultural nature, they were required to pay the Court fee in terms of Section 7(4)(c) of the Act as qualified under Section 7 (5) of the Court Fees Act. For this contention, he relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Beena v. Rajender Kumar and others, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 449.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner-plaintiffs are challenging the validity of the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondents herein) the plaintiffs were required to pay the requisite Court fee as per the sale consideration in the sale deed referred to in the suit. According to the counsel, unless the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is ordered to be cancelled, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the property of ownership, since they were neither the owners of the suit land nor can they claim to be owners of the said suit land. The petitioners cannot without cancellation of the sale deed be declared as owners of the land in question and, therefore, they are required to affix Court fee on ad valorem basis. For this contention, counsel for the respondent No. 1 relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagatram v. Mohan Gupta, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 74 (M.P.).;