Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh Singh and Another

IN T

Rasampreet Kau Gurbaksh Singh

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

¶1The pres challenging the Division), Paya Singh and Anot by the defend directed to mak on the sale cons Brief Facts

2.

31.12.2021, and No. 2. The con ₹14,60,000 resp fee of ₹1,07,625 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR Re Pro

ur

VERSUS h and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the p -.- ANNU J. sent revision petition has been order dated 15.07.2025 passed al in CS No. 271 of 2023, title ther", whereby the application f ants-respondents was allowed ke good the deficiency in court f ideration recited in the impugned e plaintiff filed a civil suit challe d 17.05.2022 executed by defen nsideration of the three sale dee pectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. T 5 was payable, whereas the plain

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-5563-2025 (O&M) served on :- 20.08.2025 onounced on:-26.08.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU petitioner. n filed by the plaintiff/petitio by the learned Civil Judge (Jun ed "Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbak filed under Order VII Rule 11 C and the plaintiff/petitioner w fee by paying ad valorem court d sale deeds. enging sale deeds dated 26.08.20 ndant No. 1 in favour of defend eds is ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 a The defendants contended that co ntiff had paid only ₹250.

- nior ksh CPC fee 021, dant

3.

It possession of th Section 7(v) of t

4.

was in possess correctly valued paid court fee of Findings of the

¶5The learn seeking declarat Although she w injunction restr possession of construction.

6.

Rel Singh @ Sardo trial Court obse he need not pay executant is no possession, then payable.

7.

had pleaded ow herself pleaded were not sanctio was pleaded by the defendan he suit land, and therefore, in t the Court Fees Act, 1870 ad valo e plaintiff, in reply, denied the ion of the suit property. It wa d the suit at ₹2,500 for purpose f ₹250, as the suit was one for de e Trial Court ned trial Court, after hearing bot tion that the sale deeds were illeg was not an executant of the raining defendant No. 2 from property and changing the na lying on the judgment of the H ool Singh v. Randhir Singh and rved that where a non-executant y ad valorem court fee on the co ot in possession and seeks, in n ad valorem court fee on the e Court recorded that in the pre wnership, but her possession ov that the revenue record did not r oned in her favour. Further, the p

nts that the plaintiff was not erms of Section 7(iv)(c) read w orem fee was payable. averments and contended that as further submitted that she h es of court fee and jurisdiction a eclaration and injunction. th sides, held that the plaintiff w gal, void, and not binding upon h sale deeds, she had also sou m alienating or transferring ature of the property by rais Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suh d Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, t seeks cancellation of a docume onsideration. However, if such n effect, the consequential relief e market value or consideration esent plaint, the plaintiff/petitio er the suit land was disputed. S reflect her name and that mutati prayer clause included a perman

- in with she had her. ught sing hrid ent, non-f of n is She ons

injunction again settled possessi possession, in su

8.

Acc valorem court f read with Sectio Submissions of

9.

Ass trial Court had m the owner in p favour, though executed the im under pretext of only required to Karan Lal, 201 declaration that fixed fee suffice Findings

10.

I h petitioner. The Singh @ Sardoo a) see stat nst dispossession. These averm ion. Therefore, though she h ubstance the suit involved recove cordingly, the trial Court held th fee on the total consideration of on 7(v) of the Court Fees Act and f learned counsel for the petitio sailing the order, learned counse misread the plaint. It was specifi possession. Defendant No. 1 ha mutations were not sanctioned mpugned sale deeds by taking de f lease. The plaintiff continued in o pay fixed court fee. Reliance 15 (2) RCR (Civil) 385, where gift deeds were illegal, where p ed. have considered the submissi distinction laid down by the H ol Singh v. Randhir Singh, 2010 Where the executant himsel ek cancellation and pay ad valor ted.

ments implied that she was not had not sought explicit relief ery of possession. hat the plaintiff was bound to pay f ₹45,90,000 under Section 7(iv) d directed her to do so. el for the petitioner argued that fically pleaded that the plaintiff w ad executed transfer deeds in d. Defendant No. 2, by deceit, efendant No. 1 to the Sub-Regis n possession, and therefore she w was placed on Sunil Kumar v. e this Court held that in a suit plaintiff was already in possessi ions of learned counsel for Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suh 0(2) RCR (Civil) 564, is clear: lf seeks to annul a deed, he m rem court fee on the considerat

- t in of y ad )(c) her got trar Jit for ion, hrid must

b) he pos c) sub Sec

11.

In simultaneously mutated in the r and he be restra by raising cons either not recogn sale deeds, co possession if the

12.

In where possessio disputed, court f

13.

Ap that although th whole discloses substance was d

14.

Lal (2015) 2 R plaintiff was ad Where a non-executant seek pays fixed fee as per Article ssession. But where such non-executan bstance, recovery of possession ction 7(iv)(c)/7(v) is payable. the present plaint, the petition averred that the transfer deeds revenue record and that defenda ained from transferring the suit struction over it. This relief pre nised or under challenge. Import oupled with the injunction, n e plaintiff's plea of ownership su Neelavathi v. N. Natarajan, (1 on is admitted, fixed court fee fee must be paid as for possessio plying these principles, the lea he plaintiff did not expressly cla s that she was not in settled p declaration coupled with possessi e reliance placed by the petitio RCR (Civil) 385 is misplaced, dmitted. In the present case, poss

ks declaration that a deed is inva 17(iii) of Schedule II, if he is nt is not in possession and seeks , then ad valorem court fee un er has pleaded ownership but s executed in her favour were ant No. 2 is threatening to alien land and from changing the nat esupposes that her possession w tantly, the relief claimed against necessarily involves recovery ucceeds.

(1980) 2 SCC 247, it was held t suffices, but where possession on. arned trial Court rightly conclud aim possession, the plaint read a possession. Therefore, the relief ion, attracting ad valorem court f oner on Sunil Kumar v. Jit Kar as in that case possession of session is specifically disputed a

- alid, s in s, in nder has not nate ture of that n is ded as a f in fee.

injunction again involves conseq Conclusion

15.

Thi suffers from no

16.

In v order dated 15.0

17.

Pen

August 26, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe nst dispossession has been pr quential relief of possession. is Court is of the considered opin illegality. view of the above, the revision p

07.2025 is upheld. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

rayed, which shows that the nion that the order of the trial Co petition is dismissed. The impugn stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- suit ourt