CR-1575-2021 -1- 109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1575-2021 Date of decision:-18.03.2025 Somnath ...Petitioner Versus Baljeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present : Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and 2 have been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2021. Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of instant revision petition, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court assailing order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panipat, whereby on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, petitioner has been directed to affix the ad valorem Court fee. 2. Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property to the BRIJ MOHAN 2025.03.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CR-1575-2021 -2- 109 extent of his share as a co-sharer and when the other co-sharers sold the property in excess of their share, he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He urges that as the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the suit property, he is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee. He has placed reliance upon: (i) Raghbir Singh Versus Sukhwinder Singh and others, 2017 (4) PLR 735; (ii) Kuljeet Singh Versus Vikramjeet and others, 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 200; (iii) Surjit Kaur and others Versus Smt. Lila Wati and others, 2014 (77) RCR (Civil) 905; and (iv) Rajiv Kumar and others Versus Rakesh Kumar and others, 2015 (8) RCR (Civil) 588. 3. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Goyal, counsel for respondent No.3 has disputed the possession of the petitioner and by relying upon Tarsem Singh and others Versus Vinod Kumar and others, 2011 SCC Online P&H 8146, he urges that petitioner is claiming a relief of possession, therefore, he is liable to affix Court fee according to the valuation of the property, which is more than Rs.2 crore. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submission besides examining the documents placed on record. 5. Plaintiff filed a suit, Annexure P-1, for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 20.07.1976 and subsequent sale deeds, are null and void and for declaring him to be the exclusive owner in BRIJ MOHAN 2025.03.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CR-1575-2021 -3- 109 possession of the property. Plaintiff also sought a decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and a direction to the defendants to demolish the construction, besides permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the suit property. Upon being served, defendant No.3 filed an application, Annexure P2, under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of the fact that the plaintiff had affixed Court fee of Rs.50/- whereas he was required to deposit Court fee on the market value of the property. After contest, this application application has been accepted by the Trial Court vide order impugned herein. 6. A perusal of plaint, Annexure P1, particularly para No.17 thereof shows that the plaintiff has claimed that cause of action accrued to him when the defendants forcibly dispossessed him sometime in the end of April/early May, 2021 by force with the help of local administration. Thus, the conceded case of the plaintiff is that he is not in possession of the suit property. Besides laying challenge to the various sale deeds and claiming permanent injunction, plaintiff has sought possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In such a situation, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the basis of the valuation of the property. 7. This legal issue has been authoritatively settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra) wherein while interpreting the provisions of Court Fee Act, 1870, it has been observed as under: “(i) If the executant of a document wants a deed to be annulled, BRIJ MOHAN 2025.03.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CR-1575-2021 -4- 109 he is to seek cancellation of the deed and to pay advalorem Court fee on the consideration stated in the said sale deed. (ii) But if a non-executant seeks annulment of deed i.e. when he is not party to the document, he is to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, non-est, illegal or that it is not binding upon him. In that eventuality, he is to pay the fixed Court fee as per Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. (iii) But if the non-executant is not in possession and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also a consequential relief of possession, he is to pay the advalorem Court fee as provided under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act and such valuation in case of immovable property shall not be less than the value of the property as calculated in the manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Act.” 8. The judgments of the co-ordinate benches relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In all these cases, plaintiff was in possession of some portion of the suit property as a co-sharer and this Court has held that he is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee. No interference is called for in the order passed by the Trial Court. 9. Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed, though no order as to costs. (SUVIR SEHGAL) 18.03.2025 JUDGE Brij Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No BRIJ MOHAN 2025.03.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh