Yash Bala @ Kiran Bala and Others vs Dinesh Kumar and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Aggrieved by order dated 24.4.2013, Annexure P/4 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/3

filed by defendants no. 5 and 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and thereby directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on sale

consideration of the sale deed which is under challenge in the suit, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India to challenge the said order. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that since plaintiffs/petitioners are not party to the sale deed dated 7.4.2008 executed by defendant no. 1,

which is under challenge in the suit, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the said sale deed. Reliance in

support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir

Singh and Others,

On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondents no. 5 to 7 contended that plaintiffs have also claimed relief of possession of the suit

property and therefore, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit property.

Counsel for the petitioners responded by contending that no such plea was raised in application Annexure P/3. It was also contended that

plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit property.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh

(supra), the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deed because the plaintiffs are not party

thereto. Impugned order passed by the trial court to this extent is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error.

However, contention of counsel for the contesting respondents that since plaintiffs have claimed relief of possession of the suit property, they are

liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property, has to be accepted. Mere fact that no such plea was raised in

application Annexure P/3 would not debar the contesting respondents/defendants from raising this pure legal plea in the instant revision petition.

Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can and has to examine the issue

of court fee in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and can issue appropriate direction for payment of proper court fee. In view of

section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, value of suit for possession of immoveable property has to be market value thereof and ad valorem

court fee thereon has to be paid. However, it may be mentioned that for agricultural land, the market value thereof is considered to be nominal for

filing the suit for possession thereof. As per Court Fees Act, as applicable in Haryana, market value of the agricultural land has to be computed @

Rs. 60/- per acre, Rs. 50/- per acre or Rs. 30/- per acre depending on the kind of land being Canal irrigated, Well irrigated, Barani etc. However,

for other immoveable property, actual market value thereof has to be taken and ad valorem court fee has to be paid thereon. In the instant case,

perusal of plaint Annexure P/1 reveals that the suit property includes agricultural land as well as urban immoveable property being a shop plot and

a house in Kurukshetra and also being a house at Abu Road ,Talhatti, District Sirohi, Rajasthan. Consequently, for relief of possession, the

plaintiffs have to value the suit property at market value and have to pay ad valorem court fee accordingly.

Contention of counsel for the petitioners that plaintiffs/petitioners have claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit property and therefore,

are not required to pay ad valorem court fee on market value thereof, cannot be accepted because the plaintiffs in the alternative have also claimed

relief of possession of the suit properties. In this regard, prayer clause (e) of the plaint is reproduced hereunder:-

(e) That in case plaintiffs fail to prove their possession or any of the defendants succeeds in forcibly dispossessing plaintiffs from any of the

properties, in that event a decree for possession be also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

In this paragraph, the plaintiffs have pleaded two eventualities i.e. in case the plaintiffs fail to prove their possession and if defendants forcibly

dispossess the plaintiffs from any of the properties. For claiming relief of possession due to forcible dispossession during the pendency of the suit,

the plaintiffs may or may not be liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit property. However, for the first eventuality that in

case the plaintiffs fail to prove their possession, the plaintiffs while claiming relief of possession on this ground have to value the suit at market value

of the suit properties and have to pay ad valorem court fee thereon.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order Annexure P/4 passed by the trial court is modified. The plaintiffs are

directed to value the suit as per market value of the suit properties and to pay ad valorem court fee thereon within two months from today.

However, market value of agricultural land in suit has to be computed in the manner specified hereinbefore whereas market value of the other

properties has to be assessed as per actual market value thereof on the date of filing of suit. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is

disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.