BANT SINGH Vs. NOBLE TRADE CONE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of sale deeds No. 6704 and 6705 dated 02.07.2008. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that sale deeds No. 6704 and 6705 dated 02.07.2008 executed by respondents No. 2 and 3 to 5 respectively in favour of respondent No. 1 with regard to the property situated in village Kanech, Tehsil and District Ludhiana are wrong, illegal, fraudulent documents, as such are liable to be cancelled and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from changing the nature of the property in question by raising the construction or in any manner and from alienating the property in dispute. During the pendency of suit, respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 2 to 5 filed two separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the C.P.C.) for rejection of plaint on various grounds including non-affixation of ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deeds dated 02.07.2008. Vide impugned order dated 24.01.2011, the trial Court found that since there is a challenge to the sale deeds dated 02.07.2008, therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and has not sought any consequential relief of possession. The petitioner has claimed property on the basis of inheritance, as it was owned by his father-Ram Singh, who had five sons including the petitioner and three daughters. Surjit Singh, one of the brothers of the petitioner, died issueless. Without knowledge of the petitioner, respondents No. 2 to 5 got mutation sanctioned in their names without mentioning name of the petitioner therein. The mutation does not confer any title, the petitioner by way of inheritance has a right in the land in question. Since the petitioner is not executants of the sale deeds, as such the same do not bind him in any manner. The sale deeds executed by respondents No. 2 to 5 beyond their share are illegal, wrong, arbitrary, null and void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has further contended that it is common knowledge that pleadings are poorly drafted in Subordinate Courts. The learned counsel has further contended that the sale deeds do not have any effect on the right and share of the petitioner, as such are not binding upon him to that extent. Since he is claiming the property as co-sharer, he is not bound to pay court fee on sale consideration, when he is not seeking relief of possession. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 158 PunLR 707 Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 1, Municipal Council, Bathinda v. Raj Kumar, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 562, Surinder Singh v. Narinder Singh, 2010 4 RCR(Civ) 139; Krishna Devi and another v. Jaswant Singh, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 563 and Ran Singh and another v. Jai Narain, 2011 162 PunLR 176.