GULZAR SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no. 1 Gulzar Singh, challenge is to order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) filed by defendant no. 1-petitioner for directing respondent no. 1-plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land, which is Rs. 2 crores, and on failure to pay the same, to reject the plaint. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff is father of defendant no. 1-petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3/defendants no. 2 and 3. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant no. 1 has obtained relinquishment deed from the plaintiff by fraud etc. The said deed has been challenged in the suit being null and void etc. along with consequent mutation. The plaintiff claims to be owner in possession of the suit land. Permanent injunction has also been claimed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if defendant no. 1 succeeds in taking forcible possession of the suit land or if defendant no. 1 is found in possession of the suit land, then decree for possession of the suit land be also passed.

(2.) Contesting defendant no. 1, in his application Annexure P-3, alleged that since plaintiff has claimed relief of declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land, in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short-the Act), but the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fee. It was also pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, for this reason also, he is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land.

(3.) Plaintiff, by filing reply (Annexure P-4), opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein. It was pleaded that plaintiff is owner as well as in possession of the suit land, and therefore, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land. It was also alleged that the suit land is agricultural land and the Act stands amended in its applicability to Haryana.