DHARAM SINGH Vs. OMAX CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is against the order allowing an objection brought by the defendant to prevail as regard the issue of court fee. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on a plea that the defendant was setting up a sale deed purported to have been executed within the State of Haryana acting on a power of attorney said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of a particular person who, in turn, has sold the property to the contesting defendant. The express averment in the plaint is that he has never gone to M.P. at any time to execute the power of attorney and the power of attorney is a forgery and consequently, the transaction of sale also is void ab initio and not binding on him. He has claimed that he is in possession of property and has sought for injunction apart from the prayer for annulling the sale on the ground that it is void.

(2.) THE contention taken in defence was that if there was a prayer for setting up the sale, it would require to be set aside and the ad valorem court fee to be paid. I have gone through the plaint and I find that there is a denial of execution of the power of attorney and the invalidity of the sale in favour of the defendant on the basis of such power of attorney. The interpretation regarding the provisions of the Court Fees Act in cases relating to immovable property for partition and for other related aspects was considered by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Versus Randhir Singh and others - : AIR 2010 (SC) 2807 and the court held as follows: -

(3.) IF the plaintiff says that he is not a party to the document and the document brought about by the defendant was forgery or not valid for the reasons that he was not himself a party, there is no requirement in law to pay ad valorem court fee. That shall be taken to be the position of law obtaining from the decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of the Court Fees Act and as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Any other interpretation to hold that a prayer for setting aside must be taken as requiring a ad valorem court fees to be paid on the market value is erroneous.