Inderjit Singh vs Sahib Singh

D.V. Sehgal, J.

The plaintiffpetitioners filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of 74 kanals 14 Marlas of land detailed in the head note of the plaint and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same. They also made a prayer for restraining the defendants form interfering with their possession and rights over the land.

Vide order dated 20th February, 1986 the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Dasuya, directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint. The petitioners filed a revision petition in this Court on which the following order was passed :

"Mr. Palli says that the advalorem Court fee is to be paid as calculated under Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act since it was an agricultural land and not on the market value thereof he also relies on the judgments reported as 1977 Revenue Law Reporter 62, and 1983 Punjab Law Reporter 25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the court fee is payable in accordance with the rule laid down by this Court in 1982 P.L.R. 127. It appears that the court below has not opined on this aspect of the matter and has ordered the plaintiffpetitioners to pay court fee advalorem at Rs. 48,000/. In the absence of opinion of the trial Court nothing is open to revise in this petition this stage. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition."

The petitioners then filed an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, in the trial Court praying that he matter with regard to payment of court fee should be reconsidered. This application has, however been dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Dasuya, vide order dated 3rd September, 1986. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that the earlier order dated 20th February, 1986 having been upheld, the petitioners are required to pay advalorem courtfee on them market value of the land, i.e. Rs. 48,000/. Section 7(iv) (c) of the CourtFees Act, 1870, no doubt lays down that to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed for, the amount of courtfee payable shall be according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. The second proviso thereto further lays down that in suits coming under subclause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section. Clause (v) interalia, lays down that where the property in dispute is land which forms part of an entire estate or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, and such revenue is permanently settled the courtfee payable shall be at ten times the revenue so payable. Thus, there can be no doubt that the present being a case of agricultural land the courtfee payable would be at the 10 times its annual revenue and not on the basis of its market value.

The revision petition is, therefore, allowed order dated 3rd September, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Dasuya, is set aside, the petitioners are allowed to pay courtfee on the plaint in terms mentioned above. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.