ASHWANI Vs. MURTI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dated 2.9.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") has been accepted and the plaintiffs have been directed to make the deficiency of court fee good by affixing ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of Rs. 23,12,500/- mentioned in the sale deed bearing wasika No. 3227 dated 17.2.2014.

(2.) The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner and his co-plaintiffs are not the executant of the sale deed dated 17.2.2014 that was executed by defendant Kalu Ram their father in favour of Smt. Murti Devi defendant No. 1 and they have only claimed joint possession as a consequential relief, they are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee. It is further submitted that the court below has taken an erroneous view of what has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in S<FV>uhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2010 2 CivCC 510 w</FV>herein even a non-executant who is claiming possession is liable to pay court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short "the Act").

(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondents has supported the impugned order by referring to judgment Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case .