L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashBy filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, some of the plaintiffs have assailed order dated 24.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rewari, thereby, directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on consideration mentioned in the sale deeds which are under challenge in the suit. Plaintiffs have sought declaration in the suit that they are owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession and defendants No. 1 to 41 have no right, title or interest in the suit land and various sale deeds mentioned in the plaint executed in favour of defendants No. 3 to 41 and consequent mutations are null and void and relief of injunction has also been prayed.
2. Application (Annexure P-2) was moved by contesting defendants for rejecting the plaint for non payment of ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deeds.
3. Plaintiffs by filing reply (Annexure P-3) contested the application.
4. Learned trial court vide impugned order (Annexure P-4) allowed the application (Annexure P-2) and directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on consideration of the impugned sale deeds failing which the plaint would be rejected. Feeling aggrieved, some of the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in
7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for contesting respondents relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) is a direct judgment on the issue to be determined in the instant revision petition. It has been categorically and unequivocally laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said judgment that if the plaintiff is not executant of the sale deed and is in possession of the suit property and sues for declaration that the sale deed is null and void and does not bind him or his share, he has to pay fixed court fee and is not required to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of the impugned sale deed. The said judgment is thus directly and fully applicable to the facts of the case.
9. On the contrary, judgment in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra) is not directly applicable to the facts of the case in hand because in that case, there was mortgage by father and decree was passed against father. Suit was filed by son alleging it to be Hindu Joint Family property. In these circumstances, ad valorem court fee was held payable. So, facts in that case were different from the facts of the case in hand. Here, plaintiffs are completely strangers to the sale deeds in question whereas in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra), plaintiff was not completely stranger to the mortgage deed which had been executed by his own father and the plaintiff claimed on the basis of the property being joint hindu family property. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that in the instant case, the plaintiffs being not party to the impugned sale deeds are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. Impugned order (Annexure P-4) of the trial court is, therefore, illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-2) moved by contesting respondents stands dismissed.
