CR-2594-2021 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2594-2021 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Mahindero Devi ...Pe!!oner Versus Ajmer Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Pawan A+ri, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Anuj Balyan, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The pe!!oner, who is the plain!ff before the learned Addi!onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. CS-303-2017 !tled ‘Mahindero Devi v. Ajmer Singh’, has invoked the supervisory jurisdic!on of this Court challenging the order dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure P-5), whereby the learned trial Court directed her to affix ad valorem court fee on the basis of the Collector rate of the property men!oned in the transfer deed sought to be cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the pe!!oner submits that the plain!ff has ins!tuted the suit for cancella!on of the transfer deed dated 24.01.2017 allegedly executed by her in favour of the respondent-defendant. Invi!ng the a+en!on of the Court to the recitals of the impugned transfer deed, it is contended that although the value of the property has been reflected therein in accordance with the Collector rate at ₹11,27,000/-, the document itself categorically records that no sale considera!on was paid to the executant, i.e. the plain!ff. It is, therefore, argued that in the absence of any considera!on having passed under the document, the pe!!oner cannot be compelled to pay ad valorem court fee on the Collector value of the property. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Nachhatar Singh (deceased through LRs) v. Atma Singh and another, 2019 AIR (Punjab) 43, wherein, while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, 2010 (2) YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2594-2021 [2] RCR (Civil) 564 (SC), it has been held that where no considera!on is men!oned in the instrument sought to be cancelled, ad valorem court fee is not payable. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not been able to dispute the aforesaid proposi!on of law. 4. The controversy involved is no longer res integra. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court authorita!vely laid down the principles governing payment of court fee in suits seeking cancella!on or declara!on in respect of documents. It was held that where the executant of a document seeks its cancella!on, ad valorem court fee is payable on the considera!on stated in the document. The Supreme Court further dis!nguished such cases from those where a non- executant seeks a declara!on regarding invalidity of the document. The said principles have consistently been followed by this Court, including in Tarsem Singh and others v. Vinod Kumar and others,2014 (1) ICC 1054; and Nachhatar Singh v. Atma Singh (supra). 5. The expression employed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely "consideraon stated in the document", is of considerable significance. The liability to pay ad valorem court fee is relatable to the considera!on recited in the instrument and not to the Collector rate or the market value of the property. Consequently, where the document itself records that no considera!on has passed between the par!es, there remains no considera!on on which ad valorem court fee can be computed. 6. A perusal of the transfer deed dated 24.01.2017 leaves no manner of doubt that although the Collector value of the property has been men!oned for the purposes of registra!on, the document does not record payment of any considera!on by the transferee to the transferor. The trial Court, therefore, fell in error in trea!ng the Collector rate as the basis for computa!on of court fee. Such an approach runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) and reiterated by this Court in Nachhatar Singh (supra). 7. Since no considera!on is shown to have been paid under the transfer deed sought to be cancelled, the pe!!oner-plain!ff cannot be directed to affix ad valorem court fee on the Collector value of the property. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a patent error of law YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2594-2021 [3] warran!ng interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdic!on under Ar!cle 227 of the Cons!tu!on of India. 8. Consequently, the present revision pe!!on is allowed. The order dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. It is held that the pe!!oner-plain!ff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the Collector rate of the property merely because the same is reflected in the transfer deed, when no considera!on is stated to have been passed thereunder. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law without insis!ng upon payment of ad valorem court fee on the basis of the Collector value. 9. Pending miscellaneous applica!on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.28 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document