Navneet Kaur Vs. Navita Sapra and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071980
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-02-2013
AppellantNavneet Kaur
RespondentNavita Sapra and Others
Excerpt:
civil revision no.3806 of 2012 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.3806 of 2012 date of decision : september 02, 2013 navneet kaur ....petitioner versus navita sapra and others ....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice l.n.mittal present : mr.sandeep kumar sharma, advocate, for the petitioner mr.ss dinarpur, advocate, for the respondents l.n.mittal, j. (oral) plaintiff navneet kaur has filed this revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of india impugning order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application annexure p/2 filed by defendant no.2/respondent no.4 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint due to non-payment of ad valorem court fee. in plaint annexure p/1 instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner against harpal singh-defendant no.1 (since deceased and represented by tiwana dalbir singh 2013.09.03 10:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh civil revision no.3806 of 2012 -2- respondents no.1 to 3) and jitender singh defendant no.2/respondent no.4, the plaintiff alleged that power of attorney dated 29.9.2001 purporting to have been executed by the plaintiff was never executed by her and consequently, two sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 executed in favour of defendant no.1 by defendant no.2 as attorney of the plaintiff are illegal and null and void and subsequent two sale deeds dated 15.12.2005 executed by defendant no.1 regarding half share of the suit land in favour of defendant no.2 are also null and void. defendant no.2 in his application annexure p/2 alleged that the plaintiff being executant of the impugned sale deeds is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned therein. plaintiff by filing reply annexure p/3 opposed the application and alleged that the power of attorney is null and void and therefore, the plaintiff is not party to the sale deeds in question executed by the alleged attorney on behalf of the plaintiff. learned trial court vide impugned order dated 1.6.2012 has allowed the application filed by defendant no.2 and has directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land. feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that the petitioner tiwana dalbir singh 2013.09.03 10:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh civil revision no.3806 of 2012 -3- had not executed alleged power of attorney and therefore, the petitioiner cannot be said to be party to the impugned sale deeds and accordingly, the petitioner is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deeds. it was also contended that the suit land being agricultural land, the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee on the market value computed in accordance with section 7(iv)(c) read with section 7(v) of the court fees act and not on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. reliance has been placed on judgment of hon'ble supreme court in suhrid singh @ sardool singh versus randhir singh, 2010(2) law herald (sc) 1371 and judgdment of this court in ranjit versus amar singh & others.2007(1) plj 465. i have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. the plaintiff is not party to the two sale deeds dated 15.12.2005 and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deeds. however, the other two sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 purport to have been executed by defendant no.2 as attorney of the plaintiff and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that plaintiff is not party to the said two sale deeds. consequently, in view of judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the case of suhrid singh (supra).the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the said two sale tiwana dalbir singh 2013.09.03 10:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh civil revision no.3806 of 2012 -4- deeds dated 8.12.2005. in this view of the matter, provisions of section 7 (iv)(c) read with section 7(v) of the court fees act are not attracted. on the contrary, according to ratio of law laid down by hon'ble supreme court in case of suhrid singh (supra).if party to the sale deed challenges the sale deed, ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in sale deed has to be paid. resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. impugned order passed by the trial court is modified and it is directed that the plaintiff shall pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the two impugned sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 only. the plaintiff shall pay the deficit court fee in the trial court within one month from today failing which appropriate order shall be passed by the trial court in accordance with law. nothing in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. ( l.n.mittal ) september 02, 2013 judge 'dalbir' tiwana dalbir singh 2013.09.03 10:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.3806 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3806 of 2012 Date of decision : September 02, 2013 Navneet Kaur ....Petitioner versus Navita Sapra and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present : Mr.Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.SS Dinarpur, Advocate, for the respondents L.N.Mittal, J.

(Oral) Plaintiff Navneet Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/2 filed by defendant No.2/respondent No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint due to non-payment of ad valorem court fee.

In plaint Annexure P/1 instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner against Harpal Singh-defendant No.1 (since deceased and represented by Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3806 of 2012 -2- respondents No.1 to 3) and Jitender Singh defendant No.2/respondent No.4, the plaintiff alleged that power of attorney dated 29.9.2001 purporting to have been executed by the plaintiff was never executed by her and consequently, two sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 as attorney of the plaintiff are illegal and null and void and subsequent two sale deeds dated 15.12.2005 executed by defendant No.1 regarding half share of the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 are also null and void.

Defendant No.2 in his application Annexure P/2 alleged that the plaintiff being executant of the impugned sale deeds is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned therein.

Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/3 opposed the application and alleged that the power of attorney is null and void and therefore, the plaintiff is not party to the sale deeds in question executed by the alleged attorney on behalf of the plaintiff.

Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 1.6.2012 has allowed the application filed by defendant No.2 and has directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land.

Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that the petitioner Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3806 of 2012 -3- had not executed alleged power of attorney and therefore, the petitioiner cannot be said to be party to the impugned sale deeds and accordingly, the petitioner is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the impugned sale deeds.

It was also contended that the suit land being agricultural land, the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee on the market value computed in accordance with section 7(iv)(c) read with section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and not on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.

Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh, 2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371 and judgdment of this Court in Ranjit versus Amar Singh & otheRs.2007(1) PLJ 465.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions.

The plaintiff is not party to the two sale deeds dated 15.12.2005 and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale deeds.

However, the other two sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 purport to have been executed by defendant No.2 as attorney of the plaintiff and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that plaintiff is not party to the said two sale deeds.

Consequently, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra).the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the said two sale Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3806 of 2012 -4- deeds dated 8.12.2005.

In this view of the matter, provisions of section 7 (iv)(c) read with section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act are not attracted.

On the contrary, according to ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suhrid Singh (supra).if party to the sale deed challenges the sale deed, ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in sale deed has to be paid.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly.

Impugned order passed by the trial court is modified and it is directed that the plaintiff shall pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the two impugned sale deeds dated 8.12.2005 only.

The plaintiff shall pay the deficit court fee in the trial court within one month from today failing which appropriate order shall be passed by the trial court in accordance with law.

Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit.

Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

( L.N.Mittal ) September 02, 2013 Judge 'dalbir' Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.03 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh