RAMBAI Vs. KAPOORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this revision petition, order dated 10.4.2012 (Annexure P -1) whereby accepting application of the respondents -defendants (in the suit preferred by the petitioner -plaintiff challenging a sale deed) under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the petitioner -plaintiff has been called upon by the lower court to make up deficiency in the court fee, is under challenge. It is claimed that since the impugned sale deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation at the hands of the respondents -defendants and no consideration had passed hands, no court fee is payable by the petitioner -plaintiff. It is also claimed that possession of the land is also undisturbed and no relief of possession has been claimed either. Stand of the respondents -defendants, on the other hand, is that the petitioner -plaintiff being vendor is a party to the sale deed wherein consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/ - had been paid and thus ad -valorem court fee is payable.

(2.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard while going through the grounds of revision, impugned order as also material and circumstances on the paper book.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that irrespective of nature of the document i.e. as to whether it is a sale -deed or gift deed or a Court decree, once relief of declaration of the document alleging the same as illegal, null and void etc., some consequential relief has been sought, it attracts affixation of ad -valorem Court fee. Counsel for the contesting respondents has sought support from judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court titled Gobind Kaur v. Pritam Singh,, 1975 PLR 06 wherein considering interplay of provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) & 7(v) & Schedule I Article I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was held that where suit for declaration that the impugned gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was not operative qua the rights of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and further relief for possession of the suit property was sought, ad -valorem Court fee was held to be payable on the plaint. Support has further been sought from yet another authority of a coordinate Bench of this Court reported as Jagat Singh v. Avtar Singh and others,, 1970 Curr. Law Journal, 80, where possession was sought without getting the gift -deed cancelled but it was held that the plaintiff had to get the alleged gift deed (to which he himself was a party) cancelled before he could seek possession of the land. The plaintiff was ordered to pay ad -valorem Court fee on the value of the property involved.