KULTAR SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to fix ad-valorem court fee on a suit filed by him wherein he has challenged sale deeds executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 and another sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. This order was made on an application moved by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for directing the petitioner to fix ad-valorem court fee on the plaint as per the valuation of the sale deeds or to reject the plaint under the said provisions. The petitioner took up a stand that suit is filed on the basis of inheritance of Lakhwinder Singh and the challenge is to the mutation sanctioned in favour of respondent No.2 (defendant No.2) and that challenge to the sale deed is a consequential relief as these sale deeds have been executed by the respondent-defendants inter-se consequent to the mutation impugned in the suit. The trial Court has directed the petitioner to fix ad-valorem court fee with a direction to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency as in a fact challenge is to the sale deeds.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the petitioner is neither signatory nor beneficiary of sale deed and has essentially challenged mutation of inheritance. He further submits that if the issue of inheritance is decided in his favour, the sale deed, being consequential to the mutation, would go. The counsel has sought support of his submission from the case of Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 1. This, however, is seriously contested by the counsel representing the respondents. He would refer to number of judgments relied upon by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. In Himanshu v. Kailash Rani, 2005 1 CivCC 337, this Court viewed that suit for declaration, seeking cancellation of the sale deed would need payment of ad-valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the deed. Similarly, in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal, 2003 2 CivCC 635, the plaintiff was asked to pay ad-valorem court fee, though suit was for declaration to the effect that the alienation has been made by a grand father without legal necessity and without consideration. This Court viewed that only to avoid the document, was to seek its cancellation and thus, ad-valorem court fee was required to be paid. Reference in this regard is further made by the trial Court to the cases of Bhagrawat v. Mehar Chand, 2002 1 CivCC 12and Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur v. Surjeet Singh and others, 2007 3 CivCC 55.

(3.) No doubt, the suit is for declaration that the alleged mutation inheritance No.837 of the Estate of Lakhwinder Singh in favour of defendant No.2 to be illegal, null and void but further direction is also sought that sale deed No.1852 dated 13.9.2002 by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 and sale deed dated 14.5.2003 by respondent No.1 through his son and attorney Harvinder Singh in favour of respondent No.4 are illegal, null and void. It would be debatable to say if the declaration in regard to inheritance alone would lead to rendering the sale deeds as illegal, null and void. In order to succeed, it would be essential for the petitioner to get the sale deeds also set-aside. Accordingly, directions to pay ad-valorem court fee can not be said to be unfair. It is rather legal and appropriate. Merely because main relief in the plaint sought is for inheritance by relegating the challenge to the sale deeds as consequential, would not change the nature of the relief sought, which primarily would be against the sale deeds impugned in the suit. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.