Gulzar Singh vs Balwant Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no. 1 Gulzar Singh, challenge is to order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) filed by defendant no. 1-petitioner for directing respondent no. 1-plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land, which is Rs. 2 crores, and on failure to pay the same, to reject the plaint. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff is father of defendant no. 1-petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3/defendants no. 2 and 3. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant no. 1 has obtained relinquishment deed from the plaintiff by fraud etc. The said deed has been challenged in the suit being null and void etc. along with consequent mutation. The plaintiff claims to be owner in possession of the suit land. Permanent injunction has also been claimed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if defendant no. 1 succeeds in taking forcible possession of the suit land or if defendant no. 1 is found in possession of the suit land, then decree for possession of the suit land be also passed.

Contesting defendant no. 1, in his application Annexure P-3, alleged that since plaintiff has claimed relief of declaration with consequential relief, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land, in view of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short-the Act), but the plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fee. It was also pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, for this reason also, he is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land.

Plaintiff, by filing reply (Annexure P-4), opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein. It was pleaded that plaintiff is owner as well as in possession of the suit land, and therefore, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land. It was also alleged that the suit land is agricultural land and the Act stands amended in its applicability to Haryana.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), has dismissed application (Annexure P-3) filed by defendant no. 1, who has therefore filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, a judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Pal Vs. Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., and also on two unreported judgments of this Court-both dated 17.07.2013, bearing C.R. No. 3992 of 2013 titled Horam vs. Dharam Pal and others and C.R. No. 4212 of 2013 titled Parkash Kaur vs. Ranjit Kaur, contended that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff contended that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land.

I have carefully considered the matter.

Since the case relates to relinquishment deed and not to sale deed, judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) regarding payment of ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is not applicable to the instant case. Other judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are also not attracted to the facts of the instant case. However, since plaintiff has also claimed alternative relief of possession of the suit land and has also claimed relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on value of the suit land, in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act. Section 7(v) of the Act has been amended by Haryana and in case of agricultural land, the market value for purpose of court fee is to be fixed at Rs. 60 per acre, Rs. 50 per acre or Rs. 30 per acre, depending on the kind of the land. In the instant case, the suit land is agricultural land, and therefore, court fee has to be paid on market value thereof, as determined at the aforesaid rate. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-3) filed by defendant no. 1-petitioner is allowed partly and the plaintiff is directed to affix court fee on market value of the suit land, as per Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act, as applicable to Haryana i.e. by determining the market value @ Rs. 60 per acre, Rs. 50 per acre or Rs. 30 per acre, as per kind of the suit land.