CR-5563-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rasampreet Kaur Gurbaksh Singh and Another CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal Singh and Another by the defendants directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration reci Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defenda fee of ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Reserved Pronounced on: Rasampreet Kaur VERSUS Gurbaksh Singh and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior , Payal in CS No. 271 of 2023, titled “Rasamp Singh and Another”, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the plaintiff 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. The plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defenda ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5563-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :- 20.08.2025 Pronounced on:-26.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior No. 271 of 2023, titled “Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh , whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee ted in the impugned sale deeds. challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defendants contended that court ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. - The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior reet Kaur v. Gurbaksh , whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and nts contended that court TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5563-2025 (O&M) 3. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 4. The 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 valued the suit at paid court fee of Findings of the Trial Court 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was seeking declaration that the sal Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the possession of property and changing the nature of the construction. 6. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112 trial Court observed that where a non he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration. However, if such non executant is not in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, then ad valorem court fee on the market value or consideration is payable. 7. The had pleaded ownership, 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 sanctioned in h (O&M) It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ad valorem fee was payable. The 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 valued the suit at ₹2,500 for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and paid court fee of ₹250, as the suit was one for declaration and injunction. Findings of the Trial Court The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was seeking declaration that the sale deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the possession of property and changing the nature of the Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112 trial Court observed that where a non-executant seeks cancellation of a document, he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration. However, if such non executant is not in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, then ad valorem court fee on the market value or consideration is The Court recorded that in the present plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had pleaded ownership, 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 sanctioned in her favour. Further, the prayer clause included a permanent -2- It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with ad valorem fee was payable. The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had ses of court fee and jurisdiction and ₹250, as the suit was one for declaration and injunction. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was e deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the possession of property and changing the nature of the property by raising Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the executant seeks cancellation of a document, he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration. However, if such non executant is not in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, then ad valorem court fee on the market value or consideration is resent plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had pleaded ownership, but her possession over the suit land was disputed. She herself pleaded that the revenue record did not reflect her name and that mutations er favour. Further, the prayer clause included a permanent - It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had ses of court fee and jurisdiction and The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was e deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the property by raising Suhrid , the executant seeks cancellation of a document, he need not pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration. However, if such non- executant is not in possession and seeks, in effect, the consequential relief of possession, then ad valorem court fee on the market value or consideration is resent plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner had pleaded ownership, but her possession over the suit land was disputed. She herself pleaded that the revenue record did not reflect her name and that mutations er favour. Further, the prayer clause included a permanent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5563-2025 (O&M) injunction against dispossession. These averments implied that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of possession, in substance the suit involved 8. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the total consideration of read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and directed her to do so. Submissions of learned counsel for the 9. Assailing the order, learned counsel 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 ha favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got executed the impugned sale deeds by taking defendant No. 1 to the Sub under pretext of lease. The plaintiff continued in possession, an only required to pay fixed court fee. Reliance was placed on Karan Lal, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 385 declaration that gift deeds were illegal, where plaintiff was already in posse fixed fee sufficed. Findings 10. I have considered the submissions petitioner. The distinction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, a) seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated. (O&M) injunction against dispossession. These averments implied that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of possession, in substance the suit involved recovery of possession. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the total consideration of read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and directed her to do so. of learned counsel for the petitioner Assailing the order, learned counsel 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 ha favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got executed the impugned sale deeds by taking defendant No. 1 to the Sub under pretext of lease. The plaintiff continued in possession, an only required to pay fixed court fee. Reliance was placed on Karan Lal, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 385, where this Court held that in a suit for declaration that gift deeds were illegal, where plaintiff was already in posse fixed fee sufficed. I have considered the submissions . The distinction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564 Where the executant himself seeks to annul a deed, he must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated. -3- injunction against dispossession. These averments implied that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of recovery of possession. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the total consideration of ₹45,90,000 under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and directed her to do so. petitioner Assailing the order, learned counsel 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 had executed transfer deeds in her favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got executed the impugned sale deeds by taking defendant No. 1 to the Sub-Registrar under pretext of lease. The plaintiff continued in possession, and therefore she was only required to pay fixed court fee. Reliance was placed on Sunil Kumar v. Jit , where this Court held that in a suit for declaration that gift deeds were illegal, where plaintiff was already in possession, I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the . The distinction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, is clear: Where the executant himself seeks to annul a deed, he must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration - injunction against dispossession. These averments implied that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, though she had not sought explicit relief of Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was bound to pay ad ₹45,90,000 under Section 7(iv)(c) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court had misread the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was d executed transfer deeds in her favour, though mutations were not sanctioned. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, got Registrar d therefore she was Sunil Kumar v. Jit , where this Court held that in a suit for ssion, of learned counsel for the Suhrid Where the executant himself seeks to annul a deed, he must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5563-2025 (O&M) b) he pays fixed fee as per Article 17(iii) of possession. c) substance, recovery of possession, then ad valorem Section 7(iv)(c)/7(v) is payable. 11. In the present plaint, the petitioner has plea simultaneously averred that the transfer deeds executed in her favour were not mutated in the revenue record and that defendant No. 2 is threatening to alienate and he be restrained from transferring by raising construction over it. either not recognised or under challenge. Importantly, the relief claimed against the sale deeds, coupled with the injunction, necessarily involves recovery of possession if the plaintiff’s plea of ownership succeeds. 12. In where possession is admitted, fixed court fee suffices, but where possession is disputed, court fee must be paid as for possession. 13. Applying these principles, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that although the plaintiff did not expressly claim possession, the plaint read as a whole discloses that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, the relief in substance was de 14. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Lal (2015) 2 RCR (Civil) 385 plaintiff was admitted. In the present case, possession is specifically disputed and (O&M) Where a non-executant seeks declaration that a deed is invalid, he pays fixed fee as per Article 17(iii) of possession. But where such non-executant is not in possession and seeks, in substance, recovery of possession, then ad valorem Section 7(iv)(c)/7(v) is payable. In the present plaint, the petitioner has plea simultaneously averred that the transfer deeds executed in her favour were not mutated in the revenue record and that defendant No. 2 is threatening to alienate and he be restrained from transferring the suit land by raising construction over it. This relief presupposes that her possession was either not recognised or under challenge. Importantly, the relief claimed against the sale deeds, coupled with the injunction, necessarily involves recovery of sion if the plaintiff’s plea of ownership succeeds. Neelavathi v. N. Natarajan, (1980) 2 SCC 247 where possession is admitted, fixed court fee suffices, but where possession is disputed, court fee must be paid as for possession. Applying these principles, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that although the plaintiff did not expressly claim possession, the plaint read as a whole discloses that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, the relief in substance was declaration coupled with possession, attracting ad valorem The reliance placed by the petitioner on Lal (2015) 2 RCR (Civil) 385 is misplaced, as in that case possession of the plaintiff was admitted. In the present case, possession is specifically disputed and -4- executant seeks declaration that a deed is invalid, he pays fixed fee as per Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, if he is in executant is not in possession and seeks, in substance, recovery of possession, then ad valorem court fee under In the present plaint, the petitioner has pleaded ownership but has simultaneously averred that the transfer deeds executed in her favour were not mutated in the revenue record and that defendant No. 2 is threatening to alienate the suit land and from changing the nature presupposes that her possession was either not recognised or under challenge. Importantly, the relief claimed against the sale deeds, coupled with the injunction, necessarily involves recovery of sion if the plaintiff’s plea of ownership succeeds. Neelavathi v. N. Natarajan, (1980) 2 SCC 247, it was held that where possession is admitted, fixed court fee suffices, but where possession is disputed, court fee must be paid as for possession. Applying these principles, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that although the plaintiff did not expressly claim possession, the plaint read as a whole discloses that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, the relief in claration coupled with possession, attracting ad valorem court fee. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Sunil Kumar v. Jit Karan is misplaced, as in that case possession of the plaintiff was admitted. In the present case, possession is specifically disputed and - executant seeks declaration that a deed is invalid, Schedule II, if he is in executant is not in possession and seeks, in fee under ded ownership but has simultaneously averred that the transfer deeds executed in her favour were not mutated in the revenue record and that defendant No. 2 is threatening to alienate e nature presupposes that her possession was either not recognised or under challenge. Importantly, the relief claimed against the sale deeds, coupled with the injunction, necessarily involves recovery of , it was held that where possession is admitted, fixed court fee suffices, but where possession is Applying these principles, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that although the plaintiff did not expressly claim possession, the plaint read as a whole discloses that she was not in settled possession. Therefore, the relief in fee. Sunil Kumar v. Jit Karan is misplaced, as in that case possession of the plaintiff was admitted. In the present case, possession is specifically disputed and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5563-2025 (O&M) injunction against dispossession has been prayed, which shows that the suit involves consequential relief of possession. Conclusion 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court suffers from no illegality. 16. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is upheld. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 26, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) injunction against dispossession has been prayed, which shows that the suit involves consequential relief of possession. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court suffers from no illegality. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is upheld. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- injunction against dispossession has been prayed, which shows that the suit This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - injunction against dispossession has been prayed, which shows that the suit This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document