MANPREET SINGH Vs. PAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.R. No. 6709 of 2013 titled Manpreet Singh v. Pal Kaur and another and C.R. No. 6794 of 2014 titled Sukhraj Singh v. Pal Kaur and another. The facts are taken from C.R. No. 6709 of 2013.

(2.) Since there are two registered sale deeds, two identical suits were filed and, therefore, the accompanying revision where the impugned order is in the same terms but passed by a different Courts at Dasuya being the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya pronounced on August 30, 2014. Both the revisions can be decided by a common order and be heard together.

(3.) Defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint for want of affixation of ad valorem court fees on the plaint in terms of Section 7 (1) (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ("1870 Act") has been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya holding that since the main relief is for cancellation of sale deed, the case would not be covered by Section 7 (1) (iv) (c) and the case on court fee would fall under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the 1870 Act under which ad valorem court fee is required to be affixed as per consideration agreed in the sale deed. The Civil Judge has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 112 in support of the order. The Supreme Court in Suhrid affirmed the principle in law that in case where plaintiff seeks a declaration that the sale deed is null and void and he was not party thereto but does not seek possession of the suit land, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem court fee but where the plaintiff seeks cancellation of sale deed along with consequential relief of possession he is required to pay ad valorem court fee to maintain the suit.