M.L Singhal, J.:— It is a suit for declaration filed by Jai Singh whereby he has claimed that land sold vide sale deed No. 325 dated 17.7.1998 registered with Joint Sub Registrar, Sadhaura is part and parcel of Khasra No. 42//20/1 and not 42//2/2 bearing plot No. 75, situated in Jaimal Singh Nagar near Civil Hospital Sadhaura and that the mutation sanctioned in respect of the sale deed dated 17.7.1998 is wrong, null, void, ineffective not binding on his rights and the rights of his brother defendant No. 6 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from raising any construction or interfering in any manner whatever with their possession of land bearing khasra No. 42//2/2.
2. Plaintiff's case is that he had agreed to sell plot No. 75 vide agreement to sell dated 23.3.1998 with defendants 1 to 5 and he had shown that plot to them. At the time when sale deed was executed, khasra No. 42/12/2 was mentioned as embracing plot No. 75, whereas khasra No. 42/2/2 embraces some other plot and plot No. 75 is embraced within khasra No. 42//20/1. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari directed the plaintiff to pay court fee ad volorem on the plaint for the relief which he has claimed. Plaintiff has assailed this order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari dated 19.4.1999 whereby he has been called upon to pay court fee ad volorem on plaint, through this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nowhere sought the setting aside of the sale deed. He has nowhere impugned the sale transaction. If he had impugned the sale transaction and prayed for its setting aside, he could have been directed to pay ad volorem court fee on the plaint. He has only sought correction/rectification of the sale deed which he admits to have been executed by him. Through correction/rectification, what he wants is that plot No. 75 embraced withm the ambit of khasra No. 42//20/1 should be deemed to have been sold by him and not as embraced within the ambit of khasra No. 42/72/2. He submits that he did sell plot No. 75 but not with the khasra number which was entered in the sale deed inadvertently.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the court has to go through the plaint and to see for itself what relief has really been claimed in substance by the plaintiff. It is the relief claimed which will determine what court fee should be paid on the plaint. He submits that if the plaintiff has cleverly worded the plaint to evade the payment of court fee the court will not permit him to evade court fee by clever drafting of the plaint. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 135 where the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration to the effect that the registered sale deed dated 26.3.1991 was forged fabricated and fake document and is not enforceable in respect of the property in question i.e house No. 86, Sector 18-A Chandigarh. Defendants contested the suit of grounds, inter-alia, that no relief for declaration could be claimed without praying for consequential relief that flows therefrom. It was a suit not one for declaration simpliciter but a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed. As such, the plaintiff in the suit ought to have paid court fee on the valuation reflected in the sale deed and the fixed court fee of Rs. 20/- was not payable. This objection did not weigh with the learned trial court. In revision, however, this objection weighed with this court and the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint.
5. While ordering the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee that what weighed with this court was that in essence the plaintiff had asked for the cancellation of the sale deed and it was a camouflage to label the suit as one for declaration for evading the payment of ad valorem court fee on the plaint.
6. In Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, (1973) 2 SCC 524 : AIR 1973 SC 2384, it was observed that “The court in deciding the question of court fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for.”
7. As I have observed earlier, so far as this suit is concerned, it is not one for cancellation of sale deed. It is one where he has sought mere correction/rectification of the sale deed. He has not denied the execution of the sale deed. If he had denied the execution of the sale deed and asked for its cancellation, then of course the plaintiff could have been asked to pay ad valorem court fee in view of the observations of this court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (supra).
8. For the reasons given above, this revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
Revision allowed.
Comments