RAJESH @ RAKESH Vs. JASPAL SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa thereby directing the Plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration declaring the sale deeds in question as void, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiff on the ground that on the date of execution of the sale deeds in question, Plaintiff was minor and his parents have played fraud and misrepresentation while producing him before the Registrar for registration of the sale deeds. Learned trial Court has observed that since Plaintiff is challenging the sale deeds in question on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and Plaintiff was executant of the sale deeds in question, hence, Plaintiff has to pay ad valorem Court fee. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others,reported in 2010 2 RCR 564 has held that when sale deed is void and Plaintiff is not the executant then relief for mere declaration would be sufficient and Plaintiff would not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if Plaintiff is executant then the main relief sought is cancellation of deed and Plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee thereon.

(3.) Having examined the matter from every aspect, I am of the view that since Plaintiff is the executant of the sale deeds in question, hence, the main relief sought is cancellation of the sale deed. The question as to whether Plaintiff was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed can only be decided after examination of the entire evidence produced before the trial Court. At this stage, contention of the Plaintiff prima facie can not be accepted that he was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed. Moreover, Section 34 of the Registration Act reads as under: