A.L Bahri, J. (Oral) — This revision has been filed by Bhag Singh plaintiff against order of Sub Judge, Jagraon, dated November 19, 1987, directing him to make good deficiency of court-fee on the plaint. The plaintiff was asked to pay ad valorem court-fee under Article I Schedule I of the Court Fees Act.
2. The suit was filed by Bhag Singh for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 24 Kanals situated in village Galib Kalan, Tehsil Jagroan, Distt. Ludhiana, after setting aside the sale deed dated June 23, 1986, executed by Jarnail Singh-defendant as attorney of of the plaintiff in favour of Gurmit Kaur-defendant No. 2, for Rs. 45000/- which was illegal, void and ineffective qua the plaintiff's rights. Mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed was also challenged. He also wanted to avoid mortgage of 8 Kanals of land executed by defendant No-in favour of defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiff he, did not execute any power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 who alleged to have mortgaged or sold the land. On the plaint court-fee of Rs. 19.50 was paid. After objection being raised, the trial Court vide the impugned order held that the ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the land was payable as the sale was being challenged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that court-fee paid on the plaint was in order. In the alternative it has been argued that the land in dispute being assessed to land revenue, and the court fee was payable at the most ten times of the land revenue assessed. In both the conditions there is merit. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that the Plaintiff intended to avoid the sale and the mortgage executed by his alleged attorney and thus he has to pay ad valorem court-fee. On the plaint only Rs. 19.50 court-fee was paid. The value of the suit for purposes of court-fee for declaration was fixed at Rs. 195/-. It was further stated that 10 times of the land revenue amounted to Rs. 150/-. However, court-fee on the bigger relief was paid i.e Rs. 19.50 as argued. The question of payment of court-fee depends upon the averments made in the plaint. If the substantive relief is declaration of title only and consequential relief is of setting aside sale being void, the case would be covered by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. In such a case if possession is already with the plaintiff, and no relief of possession is asked for, Article 1 of Schedule I will not apply. In case substantive relief is for possession after setting aside sale to which plaintiff is a party, Court Fee payable would be under Article I Schedule I of the Court-fees Act. Full Bench case in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127, is clear on this subject. In the present case the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the land in dispute and seeks declaration of ownership by avoiding sale deed and mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by his attorney. To such a suit Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act would be applicable i.e Court-fee payable would be on 10 times of the land revenue assessed as provide under Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. It was so held in Joginder Singh and others v. Major Singh, 1983 PLR 225, decided by G.C Mital, J. Since valuation for the purposes of court-fee at 10 times the land revenue is stated to be Rs. 150/- court-fee of Rs. 19.50 paid would be in order.
4. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is accepted. The order of the trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is required to pay court-fee on 10 times of the land revenue assessed.
5. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear in the trial Court on June 11, 1990. No order as to costs.