MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit for declaration qua sale deed of 9.2.2010 executed by defendant No. 3 on the basis of his holding his General Power of Attorney comprising therein the share of the plaintiff borne in the joint land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 being inoperative qua his share therein, it being violative of the terms and conditions of the GPA. A studied perusal of the plaint unfolds the factum of the plaintiff though not denying his signatures borne on GPA of 5.2.2010 wherein he constituted the defendant No. 3 as his general power of attorney, nonetheless he claims of the recitals recorded therein whereby authority stood conferred by him upon defendant No. 3 to alienate his share in the joint land by executing a deed of conveyance and to receive sale consideration stood incorporated therein by deception besides beyond the volition of the plaintiff besides beyond the instructions imparted to defendant No. 3 to merely record recitals therein permitting him to only pursue appeals/revisions before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. Moreover, consequently it is averred of the title conveyed under the apposite sale deed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 being non -est. Apart there -from, an averment stands embodied in the plaint of no part of sale consideration received by defendant No. 3 from defendants No. 1 and 2 standing transmitted to him. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 130/ - Accordingly, he affixed a fixed court fee on the plaint. The office of the learned trial Court raised an objection qua the valuation put by the plaintiff qua his suit for the purpose of court fees also an objection stood raised by the office of the court concerned, of an inappropriate fixed court fees standing affixed on the plaint by the plaintiff whereas given the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint, the valuation of the suit was enjoined to concur with besides be in tandem with Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court fees Act, 1870 provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: -

(2.) The learned trial Court after hearing the contesting parties on the aforesaid objections raised by its office directed the plaintiff to in accordance with Sec. 7(4)(c) read with Sec. 7(V) of the Court fees Act affix ad valorem court fees on the amount of sale consideration amount reflected in sale deed of 9.2.2010. The order rendered by the learned trial Court stands assailed before this Court by the plaintiff petitioner herein.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff petitioner herein alludes to the nature of the relief claimed in the plaint inasmuch as of his seeking a declaratory relief of the apposite sale deed executed qua the suit land by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 for reasons afore -stated being illegal, null and void, ineffective having no binding force on his right, title and interest in the joint land. He hence given the phraseology of the relief ventilated in the plaint by the plaintiff hence its per se communicative of its constituting a dire contradiction vis   -vis the relief for the sale deed standing prayed to be cancelled/avoided hence with the former relief standing staked by him entailed the legal consequence of his being amenable to affix a fixed Court fees on the plaint. He proceeds to contend that only in the wake of the latter relief standing staked or asserted by him he then thereon rather stood enjoined to affix court fees ad valorem vis   -vis the amount of sale consideration reflected in the apposite sale deed executed qua the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 by defendant No. 3. Even though the aforesaid semantic distinctions in the phraseology wherein the relief of cancellation of sale deed stands couched vis   -vis the couching of in the plaint the relief of declaration qua the sale deed standing decreed to be void ab initio and its not holding any binding effect qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the joint land, with the concomitant sequelling effect of the plaintiff/petitioner herein standing hence enjoined to respectively affix on the plaint court fees ad valorem qua the amount of sale consideration borne on the apposite sale deed concerted to be rescinded or cancelled vis   -vis his standing enjoined to affix thereon a fixed Court fees stand accepted by a catena of judicial pronouncements. Nonetheless acceptance by this Court of the ratio decidendi contained in a decision of Patna High Court rendered in Devasharay Singh versus Saroj Kumar @ Saroj Singh, : 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 523 (Patna), the relevant Paragraph -5 whereof stands extracted herein -after: