IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 165 CR-4429-2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Dr. Anurag Bharti . . . . Petitioner Vs. Veena Kant Manchanda and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr.Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner-defendant No.2 has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint of civil suit [CS-407-2023] on the ground of deficient court fee has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has sought declaration of ownership along with a declaration that the transfer deed dated 27.02.2020 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon her rights, besides possession of the suit property. It is argued that unless ad valorem court fee on the value of the transfer deed is paid, such a suit is not maintainable and, therefore, the plaint deserves rejection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 4. The controversy is no longer res integra. The plaint discloses that the plaintiffs claimed title as two of the legal heirs of late Madan Lal and asserted that the transfer deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding upon their share in the ancestral/inherited VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.13 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4429-2026 2026:PHHC:094663 property. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not the executant of the impugned transfer deed. 5. The distinction between a suit for cancellation of an instrument and a suit for declaration that the instrument is illegal, void or not binding is well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, authoritatively lays down that:
where the executant of a sale deed seeks to annul the document, he must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration mentioned therein;
however, where a non-executant seeks a declaration that the document is illegal, void or not binding upon his rights, he is not required to seek cancellation of the instrument and ordinarily pays only the fixed court fee prescribed for a declaratory suit, subject to the nature of consequential relief claimed. 6. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment has consistently been followed by this Court in numerous decisions. 7. In the present case, the plaintiffs are admittedly not the executant of the transfer deed. Their challenge is founded on the plea that the property devolved by inheritance and that defendant No.2 had no authority to transfer their share. They also the will propounded by defendants and the consequent mutation. Therefore, the relief sought is essentially a declaration that the transfer deed does not affect their rights. Such a suit cannot be equated with a suit for cancellation of the instrument. 8. The learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gurinder Singh v. Satnam Kaur and others [CR-153-2024 decided on 30.07.2025], wherein it has been reiterated that a non-executant, claiming title based on inheritance, challenging a transfer deed as not binding upon his rights is liable to pay only the fixed court fee applicable to a declaratory suit with consequential relief of joint possession. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.13 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4429-2026 2026:PHHC:094663 9. Even otherwise, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is confined to the averments contained in the plaint alone. The defence taken by the defendants or disputed questions regarding the true nature of the property or validity of the transfer cannot be examined at that stage. It is only where the plaint, on a meaningful reading, unmistakably attracts the bar contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 that rejection thereof can be ordered. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamala and others v. K.T. Eshwara Sa and others, (2008) 12 SCC 661, Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, has consistently held that only the plaint averments are relevant while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and no disputed question of fact can be adjudicated at that stage. 11. The impugned order correctly applies the settled principles of law. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity has been pointed out warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not to substitute this Court's view merely because another view is possible. 12. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. 13. `Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.13 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document