Revision petition challenging an order directing the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on a suit for declaration that sale deeds executed by him were illegal and without consideration. Following Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh, the court held an executant seeking annulment must sue for cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.889 of 2024
2024:PHHC:023018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
123 CR No.889 of 2024 Reserved on : 14.02.2024 Date of Decision : 20.02.2024
Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kirandeep Kaur and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.20 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.889 of 2024 -2-
2024:PHHC:023018
is of unsound mind. An application (Annexure P-2) was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint by defendant-respondent No.2 on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner was required to affix the ad valorem court fee and that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground of deficiency of the court fee. Reply (Annexure P-3) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner stating therein that the sale deeds have been challenged as no consideration was received by him, he was not of sound mind and, as such, there was no requirement to affix the ad valorem court fee.
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.20 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.889 of 2024
-32024:PHHC:023018
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 nonexecutant, 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
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.20 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.889 of 2024
-42024:PHHC:023018
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.”
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.20 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.889 of 2024
-5-
2024:PHHC:023018
( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE
20.02.2024 jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.20 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an executant of a sale deed seeking only declaration that the deed is void must affix ad valorem court fee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors.Relied on¶5
2010 (12) SCC 112 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Jagtar Singh
Kirandeep Kaur
Second Respondent
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
