AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 545 wordsL.N. Mittal, J.
CM No. 11459-CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No. 11460-CII of 2009
The application is allowed and Annexure A-1 plaint is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
Legal representatives of original plaintiff Tilaku Ram since deceased have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the trial Court thereby requiring the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the two sale deeds which are under challenge in the suit.
Consent decree dated 04.10.1993 was passed in favour of defendant no. 1-Mange Ram against the plaintiff declaring defendant no. 1-Mange Ram to be owner in possession of the suit land. Mange Ram is none else but son of the plaintiff-Tilaku Ram. Said decree has been challenged in the suit. Mange Ram defendant no. 1 executed two sale deeds dated 09.05.1995 and 20.06.1995 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 regarding part of the suit land. The said sale deeds have also been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit.
On application filed by defendants no. 2 to 4 that proper court fee has not been affixed, the trial Court vide order dated 27.11.2007 directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the two sale deeds. Plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 463 of 2008 in this Court to challenge the said order. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2008, which is reproduced hereunder:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail of the remedy, with regard to pay the court fee, as per the amendment made by the State of Haryana.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted in the trial Court that the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of the sale deeds but the trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.04.2009 reiterated that plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds. Feeling aggrieved, LRs. of plaintiff have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
In view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, , the plaintiff being not party to the sale deeds in question, is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deeds. Consequently, impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. On the contrary, as observed in order dated 09.12.2008 by this Court as extracted hereinbefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff is directed to pay Court fee on the plaint in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act.