V.M Jain, J.:— This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court vide which the review application filed by defendant No. 1 was allowed and the plaintiff was dirccted to affix the ad valorem Court-fees on the impugned sale-deed dated 19-4-1993.
2. Himanshu plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession with mandatory injunction against the defendants to the effect that the sale-deed dated 19-4-1993 executed by his grand-father Nihal Chand (defendant No. 2) in favour of defendant No. 1-Smt. Kailash Rani was illegal and void and the same was executed without consideration and legal necessity, based on fraud etc. and was not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit was contested by defendant No. 1, alleging therein that she had purchased the land in question from defendant No. 2-Nihal Chand after paying full consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/- and that the same was legal and valid and the father had the legal necessity to sell the suit land. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale-deed, since the plaintiff was challenging the legality of the sale-deed. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and it was alleged that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid on the value of the sale-deed. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court, after placing reliance on 1990 (1) PLR 261 held that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. Resultantly, the application filed by defendant No. 1 was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 22-10-2002. Thereafter defendant No. 1 filed application for review of the aforesaid order dated 22-10-2002 on the ground that authority 1990 (1) PLR 261 had been wrongly relied upon while passing the order dated 22-10-2002 and the provisions of the Court-Fees Act were ignored. The said application for review filed by defendant No. 1 was contested by the plaintiff on various grounds including the question of delay, maintainability of the review application and also on merits, alleging therein that ad valorem Court-fees was not required to be paid. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-10-2003 reviewed the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the value of the sale-deed dated 19-4-1993. Aggrieved against this order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Tire learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before me that no case was made out for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh, 1990 (2) RRR 29 (P&H) : 1990 (1) PLR 261 and Tara Singh v. Tarsem Singh, 1987 Recent Rev Reports 37 (P&H). It was further submitted that in any case, no case for reviewing the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 was made out.
4. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. In Ranjit Singh… v. Balkar Singh…, 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 573 (P&H) : 2000 (2) Pun LJ 295, it was held by this Court that where the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale-deed dated 24-7-1997 for Rs. 1,62,000/- by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal and void and without consideration and legal necessity and based on fraud and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the sale consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. While coming to this conclusion, this Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, (1973) 2 SCC 524 : AIR 1973 SC 2384 as also on the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case reported as Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 PLJ 423 (FB) : (AIR 1981 P&H 368). Reference was also made to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 135 (P&H) : 1998 (1) PLJ 645 : AIR 1998 P&H 121.
5. In Jagdish… v. Jagat Pal…, 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 732 (P&H) : 2003 (2) PLJ 403 also it was held by this Court that the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed if the plaintiffs were challenging the sale-deed executed by their grand-father. In the reported case, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale-deed dated 26-12-1983 for a sum of Rs. 23,450/- executed by their grand-father defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 on the ground that the same was illegal and void and without authority and was liable to be set aside etc. The question of payment of Court-fees had arisen in the said case. This Court after considering the various contentions of the learned counsel for the parties found that the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed. While coming to this conclusion, this Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in Bagrawat v. Mehar Chand, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 94 (P&H) : 2001 (2) PLJ 204 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur (AIR 1981 P&H 368) (supra). After considering these authorities, it was held that where a suit has been filed for declaration that the sale-deed executed by the plaintiffs father was without legal necessity or without consideration etc. and was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, then there is challenge to the validity of the sale-deed and the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court-fees as per sale consideration in the sale-deed. The authority Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh (supra), relied upon by the trial Court in the present case while passing the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 was also considered and not found applicable to the said case. Similar view was taken by this Court in Bagrawat v. Mehar Chand (supra).
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the Full Bench of this Court and by this Court in various other judgments referred to above, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that in the present case, the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem Court-fees on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed in question. I am further of the opinion that the authority 1990 (1) PLR 261 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which was also relied upon by the trial Court while passing the earlier order dated 22-10-2001, would have no application to the facts of the present case, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the Full Bench of this Court in the cases referred to above. Similar would be the position with regard to the authority 1987 Rec Rev Rep 371 (supra) also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, it would be clear that the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem Court-fees in the present suit on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed, as by filing the present suit for declaration, the plaintiff was seeking the cancellation of the aforesaid sale-deed executed by his grand-father in favour of defendant No. 1. Once it is found that the plaintiff was required to pay the ad valorem Court-fees by being the present suit, it would be clear that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order dated 30-10-2003 directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees.
8. From the discussion above, in my opinion, it would be clear that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in various authorities referred to above, the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem Court-fees and the earlier order dated 22-10-2002 passed by the trial Court taking a contrary view was not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was within its jurisdiction and was perfectly justified in reviewing its earlier order dated 22-10-2002 on the question regarding payment of Court-fees since the earlier order passed by the trial Court was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the trial Court was perfectly justified in reviewing the earlier order dated 22-10-2002. That being so, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the impugned order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court had reviewed its earlier order dated 22-10-2003 and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fees.
9. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision-petition, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed time up to 15-12-2003 to pay the ad valorem Court-fees as directed by the trial Court in its order dated 30-10-2003.
Petition dismissed.