Present : Mr. Surinder Dagar Advocate Vs. Parveen and Another ....Petitioners - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055663
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-19-2013
AppellantPresent : Mr. Surinder Dagar Advocate
RespondentParveen and Another ....Petitioners
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.1852 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision : march 19, 2013 parveen and another ....petitioners versus sumitra ....respondent coram : hon'ble mr.justice t.p.s.mann present : mr.surinder dagar, advocate for the petitioner. t.p.s.mann, j. (oral) the plaintiffs have filed the present revision under article 227 of the constitution of india for challenging the order passed by the trial court on 11.2.2013 whereby application filed by the defendant-respondent under order vii rule 11 c.p.c.for rejection of the plaint was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to affix ad valorem court fee. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the entire sale consideration, only rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendant. the sale deed was got executed by the defendant by playing fraud with them. the petitioners are already in possession of the suit property and are not seeking the relief of possession. therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court requiring them to affix ad valorem court fee be set aside. admittedly, as per sale deed in question, the entire sale consideration of rs.30,00,000/- was paid by the defendant- respondent to the plaintiffs-petitioners.the plea that only rs.5,00,000/- had been paid cannot be taken into consideration at civil revision no.1852 of 2013 (o&m) -2- this stage as they would lead evidence before the trial court and try to establish the said fact. once it stands mentioned in the sale deed that the entire consideration of rs.30,00,000/- had been paid, the plaintiffs, who are seeking declaration that the sale deed in question was null and void having been executed by playing fraud upon them, are required to affix ad valorem court fee. similarly, the plea of the petitioners that they are not seeking possession of the suit property cannot absolve them of the liability to affix ad valorem court fee in view of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court in khajan versus j.s.r.land developer private limited, 2011 (4) ccc 4. to be fair to counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that reliance by him upon a judgment of another co.ordinate bench of this court in the case of surjit singh versus karamjit kaur, 2012(3) rcr (civil) 364 is mis-placed as in the said case, it was a transfer between relations and the transfer deed therein was without any consideration and did not require payment of stamp duty. on the other hand, in the present case, the sale consideration of rs.30,00,000/- was reflected in the sale deed. once the sale consideration was there, the plaintiffs are required to affix ad valorem court fee in their suit wherein they seek declaration that the sale deed in question was result of fraud played upon them by the defendant/respondent. in view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( t.p.s.mann ) march 19, 2013 judge satish
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1852 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 19, 2013 Parveen and another ....Petitioners Versus Sumitra ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

T.P.S.MANN, J.

(Oral) The plaintiffs have filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 11.2.2013 whereby application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.for rejection of the plaint was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to affix ad valorem Court fee.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the entire sale consideration, only Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendant.

The sale deed was got executed by the defendant by playing fraud with them.

The petitioners are already in possession of the suit property and are not seeking the relief of possession.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court requiring them to affix ad valorem Court fee be set aside.

Admittedly, as per sale deed in question, the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid by the defendant- respondent to the plaintiffs-petitioneRs.The plea that only Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid cannot be taken into consideration at Civil Revision No.1852 of 2013 (O&M) -2- this stage as they would lead evidence before the trial Court and try to establish the said fact.

Once it stands mentioned in the sale deed that the entire consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- had been paid, the plaintiffs, who are seeking declaration that the sale deed in question was null and void having been executed by playing fraud upon them, are required to affix ad valorem Court fee.

Similarly, the plea of the petitioners that they are not seeking possession of the suit property cannot absolve them of the liability to affix ad valorem Court fee in view of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Khajan versus J.S.R.Land Developer Private Limited, 2011 (4) CCC 4.

To be fair to counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that reliance by him upon a judgment of another Co.ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh versus Karamjit Kaur, 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 364 is mis-placed as in the said case, it was a transfer between relations and the transfer deed therein was without any consideration and did not require payment of stamp duty.

On the other hand, in the present case, the sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- was reflected in the sale deed.

Once the sale consideration was there, the plaintiffs are required to affix ad valorem Court fee in their suit wherein they seek declaration that the sale deed in question was result of fraud played upon them by the defendant/respondent.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

( T.P.S.MANN ) March 19, 2013 JUDGE satish