Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 34
CS DJ 68/23
VINOD GARG Vs. GEETA DEVI
08.10.2024
Present : Sh. Vikas Chabbra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff through
V.C.
Sh. Prateek Jain, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2.
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1
through V.C.
Sh. Vipin Tripathi, Ld. Proxy counsel for the defendant
no.3.
Sh. Bhishm Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no.5/TPDDL.
Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. Proxy counsel for the defendant no. 4
through V.C.
Sh. K. R. Hasija, Ld. Proxy counsel for the defendant no. 4.
1. Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendant no. 2.
Arguments heard on the application u/o 7 rule 10 CPC filed by the
defendant no. 2. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that in
the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 1260/-. The suits whose
valuation is less than Rs. 3 lakhs are triable by the court of Ld. SCJ/CJ.
Hence, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
2. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the valuation
has been done at Rs. 85 lakhs which is the consideration amount as
mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 18.12.2021 which is sought to be
-- 1 of 4 --
-: 2 :-
canceled by way of the present suit. It is submitted that this fact is
mentioned in the documents check list and also in para no. 17 of the
plaint. The valuation at Rs. 1260/- is done for the purposes of court fees
only. Hence, it is submitted that this court has the pecuniary jurisdiction
to entertain the present suit.
3. Record perused.
4. As mentioned by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, for the
purpose of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff has valued the suit at
Rs. 85 lakhs, as mentioned in the document check list and para no. 17 of
the plaint. Hence, this court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit. Application is dismissed accordingly.
5. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that, in that scenario,
the plaintiff must file the
ad valorum court fees in compliance of the
judgment titled as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh &
Ors 2010 (12) SCC 112, as the plaintiff is not the executant of the
impugned Sale Deed.
-- 2 of 4 --
-: 3 :-
6. Perused. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
as under:-
6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to
seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks
annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is
invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The
difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in
regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the
following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A'
executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to
avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the
other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to
avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by
`A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In
essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as
non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also
different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the
deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration
stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in
possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void
and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed
court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of
the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he
-- 3 of 4 --
-: 4 :-
seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also
the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem
court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section
7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to
the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The
proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory
decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property,
such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property
calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
7. In the present matter, the plaintiff is not the executant of the
Sale Deed nor he has sought the possession of the impugned portion.
Hence, he is not required to file the
ad valorum court fees.
8. Now, to come up for arguments on the application u/o 1 rule
10 CPC filed by the defendant no. 5 on 16.01.2025.
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
DJ-03 (N/W)
Rohini Courts :Delhi/08.10.2024
-- 4 of 4 --