Kanta Devi vs Yogesh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff-Kanta Devi has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 25.09.2012 Annexure P-4 passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application Annexure P-2 filed by defendant no. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and thereby directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay ad Valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deed. The plaintiff has filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-1 alleging that defendant no. 1 by fraud obtained registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 16.07.2009 and on its basis, defendant no. 1 as attorney of the plaintiff sold the suit property to defendant no. 4 vide registered sale deed dated 13.11.2009. The plaintiff in the suit has challenged the aforesaid GPA and sale deed and has sought cancellation thereof.

Defendant no. 4 in application Annexure P-2 alleged that he has purchased the suit property for Rs. 28,80,500/- and since plaintiff-petitioner is challenging the sale deed, she is liable to pay ad Valorem court fee on the said sale consideration, but has not paid the same and therefore, the plaint is liable to rejection.

Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P-3 contested the application and pleaded that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and she is not party to the sale deed in question and, therefore, she is not liable to pay ad Valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 has directed the plaintiff to pay ad Valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deed. Feeling dissatisfied, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

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

Counsel for the parties reiterated their aforesaid respective stands. Counsel for the petitioner particularly emphasized that the power of attorney was obtained by fraud and criminal proceedings for the same have also been lodged and, therefore, plaintiff is not liable to pay ad Valorem court fee.

I have carefully considered the matter. The plaintiff is party to the impugned sale deed which is under challenge in the suit. The sale deed was executed by respondent no. 1 as attorney of the plaintiff. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is not party to the sale deed. It may be added that the plaintiff has also sought declaration that the GPA as well as sale deed are liable to be cancelled. Irrespective of the language of the relief claimed in the plaint, the fact remains that the plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid sale deed besides GPA. The plaintiff is party to the sale deed as noticed hereinbefore. Consequently, in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, , the plaintiff is liable to pay ad Valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the plaintiff has been rightly directed to pay the ad Valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. Impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in this regard so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.