SARWAN SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P4) whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Jalandhar has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the respondent-defendants for rejection of the plaint and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to fix ad valorem Court fee before 16.10.2014. The reasoning of the Court, as per the said order, which is subject matter of challenge is that plaintiff-petitioner being the owner of the land was challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No.4, being his attorney of the land measuring 61.5 marlas and was seeking the relief of possession.

(2.) As per the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for declaration, he was the lawful owner of the land/property measuring 61.5 marlas, situated at Village Lamba Pind, Tehsil & District Jalandhar. Challenge was also laid to the sale deed dated 21.04.2008, allegedly executed by defendant No.4, Kashmira Singh on behalf of defendant No.3 and the plaintiff, being the attorney. The petitioner had also asked for possession of the property apart from various other reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction etc.

(3.) The Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, 2010 12 SCC 112 has cleared all the controversy regarding affixation of Court fees on ad valorem basis or a fixed value under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, the 'Act'). It has been held that where an executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to pay ad valorem Court fees and especially if possession is also being sought. Relevant observation read as under: