Mandip Kaur and others vs Bhag Singh @ Kehar Singh and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed by plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) filed by defendant no. 1 and directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of both the transfer deeds which are under challenge in the suit. Plaintiffs/petitioners are daughters of Bhag Singh @ Kehar Singh-defendant no. 1 whereas defendants no. 2 and 3 are sons of defendant no. 1. Plaintiffs have filed suit vide plaint (Annexure P-1) for joint possession of the suit land measuring 108 kanals 6 marlas alleging the suit land to be coparcenary property of the parties. In the suit, the plaintiffs have also challenged two transfer deeds executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 regarding the suit land.

Defendant no. 1 in application (Annexure P- 2) alleged that since plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid transfer deeds and have also claimed joint possession of the suit land, plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land i.e. Rs. 70,08,000/- regarding transfer deed in favour of defendant no. 2 and Rs. 61,01,000/- regarding transfer deed in favour of defendant no. 3.

The plaintiffs by filing reply (Annexure P- 3) controverted the averments made in application (Annexure P- 2) and contested the said application.

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

Counsel for the petitioners contended that plaintiffs/petitioners being not party to the transfer deeds are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee. On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 contended that since plaintiffs have claimed cancellation of the transfer deeds and have also claimed relief of possession, plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee and have been rightly directed to do so.

I have carefully considered the matter. The plaintiffs are not party to the transfer deeds, which are under challenge in the suit and, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the land mentioned in the transfer deeds. Moreover, the transfer deeds in question were not executed for any consideration. The same were executed without consideration. For this reason also, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on actual market value of the suit land, as erroneously directed by the trial Court. In this view, I am supported by judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. Karamjit Kaur, .

However, since the plaintiffs have claimed relief of joint possession of the suit land, in view of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the alleged share of plaintiffs in suit land. However, the core question to be determined in this regard is as to what would be the market value of the suit land for this purpose. This question also need not detain me for long. Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act itself stipulates that in the case of agricultural land, market value thereof for purpose of Court fee shall be ten times the land revenue of the agricultural land. Consequently, in the instant case, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee by computing the market value of the agricultural land at ten times of the land revenue and that too qua the share claimed by the plaintiffs. Perusal of plaint (Annexure P- 1) reveals that the plaintiffs have already affixed the Court fee by calculating value of the suit land for purpose of the Court fee accordingly. However, if there is any error in the said calculation, the plaintiffs may be directed by the trial Court to rectify the same and to pay deficient Court fee, if any. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the trial Court directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on actual market value of the suit land as mentioned in the impugned transfer deeds, is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Consequently, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P- 4) passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application (Annexure P- 2) filed by defendant no. 1 stands dismissed. However, plaintiffs may be directed to pay deficient Court fee, if any, to be computed as noticed hereinbefore.