Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2013) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 11945 = 2014(1) L.A.R. 562
Decided on: 22.07.2013
Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.12 to 14.
Court Fees Act,1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(v) – Ad-valorem court fees -- Sale deeds/transfer deeds challenged in the suit were not executed by the plaintiffs -- Plaintiffs were not party to the said deeds -- Plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deeds under challenge -- However, plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee on ad-valorem value of the suit land for the relief of possession – In case of agricultural land, the market value shall be ten times the land revenue of the land and on the value so determined, the ad-valorem court fee shall be payable.
(Para 7-9)
Cases referred:
1. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, 2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1371.
JUDGMENT
L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Hardam Singh plaintiff No.10 has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court thereby directing the plaintiffs (petitioner and pro-forma respondents No.17 to 30) to pay ad-valorem court fee on market value of the suit land as per collector rates.
2. Plaintiffs have filed suit against respondents No.1 to 16-defendants seeking declaratory reliefs, besides relief of possession of the suit land if plaintiffs are not found in possession thereof. Plaintiffs have also claimed permanent injunction.
3. Defendants No.1 to 4 filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiffs have not paid court fee on the market value of the suit land which according to transfer deeds challenged in the suit is more than Rs.two crores.
4. The plaintiffs by filing reply opposed the aforesaid application and pleaded that proper court fee has been paid.
5. Learned trial Court vide order (Annexure P-1) directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land as per collector rates. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.10 has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
7. Admittedly, the sale deeds/transfer deeds challenged in the suit were not executed by the plaintiffs. In other words, plaintiffs were not party to the said deeds. Consequently, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh 2010 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1371, plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad-valorem court fee on sale consideration recited in the sale deeds under challenge.
8. However, in view of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee on ad-valorem value of the suit land for the relief of possession. The question to be determined, however, is as to what would be the market value of the suit land for this purpose. The trial Court has directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land as per collector rates. However, there is no basis for order of the trial Court regarding collector rates of the suit land. On the contrary, according to Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, in case of agricultural land, the market value shall be ten times the land revenue of the land. In the instant case also, the suit land is agricultural land.
9. Consequently, market value of the suit land has to be determined at ten times the land revenue thereof and on the value so determined, the ad-valorem court fee shall be payable. In addition to it, plaintiffs have to pay requisite court fee for the reliefs of declaration and injunction. It is ordered accordingly in modification of impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
********