Rasampreet Kaur vs Gurbaksh Singh and Another

Mandeep Pannu, J

The present revision petition has beenn filed by the plaintiff/petitiooner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junnior Division), Payal in CS No. 271 of 2023, titleed “Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh Singh and Anotther”, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds.

Brief Facts

Thee plaintiff filed a civil suit challeenging sale deeds dated 26.08.20021, 31.12.2021, andd 17.05.2022 executed by defenndant No. 1 in favour of defenddant No. 2. The connsideration of the three sale deeeds is ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defendants contended that coourt fee of ₹1,07,6255 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250.

It was pleaded by the defendannts that the plaintiff was not in possession of thhe suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ad valoorem fee was payable.

Thee plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had correctly valuedd the suit at ₹2,500 for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and paid court fee off ₹250, as the suit was one for deeclaration and injunction.

Findings Of the Trial Court

The learnned trial Court, after hearing botth sides, held that the plaintiff was seeking declarattion that the sale deeds were illeggal, void, and not binding upon her. Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also souught injunction restrraining defendant No. 2 fro m alienating or transferring the possession of property and changing the nature of the property by raissing construction.

Rellying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhhrid Singh @ Sardoool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the trial Court observed that where a non-executantt seeks cancellation of a document, he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the coonsideration. However, if such non-executant is noot in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, thenn ad valorem court fee on the market value or considerationn is payable.

Thee Court recorded that in the present plaint, the plaintiff/petitiooner had pleaded owwnership, but her possession over the suit land was disputed. She herself pleaded that the revenue record did not reflect her name and that mutations were not sanctiooned in her favour. Further, the prayer clause included a permannent injunction againnst dispossession. These avermments implied that she was nott in settled possessiion. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of possession, in suubstance the suit involved recoveery of possession.

Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to payy ad valorem court fee on the total consideration of ₹45,90,000 under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Sectioon 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and directed her to do so.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

Asssailing the order, learned counseel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court had misread the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was the owner in possession. Defendant No. 1 haad executed transfer deeds in her favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got executed the im pugned sale deeds by taking deefendant No. 1 to the Sub-Registrar under pretext of lease. The plaintiff continued inn possession, and therefore she was only required too pay fixed court fee. Reliance was placed on Sunil Kumar v. Jit Karan Lal, 20115 (2) RCR (Civil) 385, where this Court held that in a suit for declaration that gift deeds were illegal, where plaintiff was already in possessiion, fixed fee sufficeed.

I have considered the submissiions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The distinction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhhrid Singh @ Sardoool Singh v. Randhir Singh, 20100(2) RCR (Civil) 564, is clear:

a) Where the executant himsellf seeks to annul a deed, he must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the considerattion statted.

b) Where a non-executant seeks declaration that a deed is invaalid, he pays fixed fee as per Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, if he iss in posssession.

c) But where such non-executant is not in possession and seekss, in subbstance, recovery of possession, then ad valorem court fee unnder Secction 7(iv)(c)/7(v) is payable.

In the present plaint, the petitioner has pleaded ownership but has simultaneously averred that the transfer deedss executed in her favour were not mutated in the revenue record and that defendaant No. 2 is threatening to aliennate and he be restraained from transferring the suit land and from changing the natture by raising consstruction over it. This relief preesupposes that her possession was either not recognised or under challenge. Importtantly, the relief claimed against the sale deeds, cooupled with the injunction, necessarily involves recovery of possession if thee plaintiff’s plea of ownership suucceeds.

In Neelavathi v. N. Natarajan, (11980) 2 SCC 247, it was held that where possessioon is admitted, fixed court fee suffices, but where possessionn is disputed, court fee must be paid as for possessioon.

Applying these principles, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that although the plaintiff did not expressly claaim possession, the plaint read as a whole disclosess that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, the relieff in substance was d eclaration coupled with possessiion, attracting ad valorem court fee.

Thee reliance placed by the petitioner on Sunil Kumar v. Jit Karan Lal (2015) 2 RCR (Civil) 385 is misplaced, as in that case possession of the plaintiff was admitted. In the present case, posssession is specifically disputed and injunction against dispossession has been prrayed, which shows that the suit

involves consequential relief of possession.

Conclusion

Thiis Court is of the considered opinnion that the order of the trial Coourt suffers from no illegality.

In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is upheld.

Pennding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.