Affirming settled law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that when an executant seeks cancellation of a sale deed executed by them—even if alleging fraud or non-payment of consideration—they must pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration mentioned in the sale deed. This judgment upholds the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807, thereby serving as binding authority in similar matters regarding court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/7350/2025 of Kiran Rani Alias Kiran Goyal and Another Vs Sandeep Kumar and Others |
| CNR | PHHC011656872025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court order; follows Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Court Fees Act, 1870 |
| Questions of Law | Whether an executant seeking to set aside their own sale deed must pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration, even if alleging fraud. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the legal position is settled: an executant of a sale deed challenging the deed’s validity must pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated, as per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The contention that fraud or lack of consideration changes this requirement was rejected. The Court clarified that the nature of execution—voluntary or otherwise—does not alter the duty to pay such court fee when seeking cancellation. The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity was found in the trial court’s reasoning. The petition was dismissed, and the plaintiffs ordered to comply with the court fee direction for the suit to proceed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | The distinction under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act between non-executants and executants; application of ad valorem fee for executants. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs executed two sale deeds dated 31.07.2024 in favour of defendants, later alleging fraud and non-payment of consideration, and sought their cancellation. The trial court, on defendants’ application, directed plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee, relying on precedent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; serves as precedent for similar legal issues regarding court fee in suits to set aside sale deeds by executants |
| Follows | Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807 (Supreme Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reconfirms that an executant challenging their own sale deed must pay ad valorem court fee, even if the challenge is based on fraud or non-payment.
- Allegations of fraud or lack of consideration do not alter the status of the plaintiff as executant for court fee purposes.
- The essential legal distinction is whether the plaintiff is an executant or a non-executant of the impugned document.
- The High Court reiterates that such suits cannot be valued on a fixed court fee.
- Strict compliance with ad valorem fee is a prerequisite before the suit can proceed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court’s order, directing payment of ad valorem court fee by the executant-plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds, was challenged.
- The High Court examined the settled legal principle that a non-executant may pay a fixed court fee, but an executant must pay ad valorem fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act.
- The contention that execution alleged to be induced by fraud or non-payment releases the executant from this requirement was rejected; there is no distinction in the Act between voluntary or involuntary execution for court fee purposes.
- The judgment specifically followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh, which mandated ad valorem court fee from executants.
- The High Court found the trial court’s order to be correct, lacking jurisdictional error or perversity, and dismissed the revision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged that the sale deeds were obtained by fraud and without actual payment of sale consideration, so plaintiffs cannot be treated as true executants.
- Asserted the trial court’s findings were perverse and contrary to settled legal principles.
- Contended that the trial court should have dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC outright.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs executed two registered sale deeds on 31.07.2024 in favour of the defendants. Later, alleging that the deeds were obtained by fraud and that full consideration was not paid, they filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking to have the sale deeds declared null and void. The defendants applied for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that as executants, the plaintiffs must pay ad valorem court fee. The trial court directed the plaintiffs to do so, prompting this revision petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was interpreted.
- The Court confirmed the distinction: Non-executants seeking to avoid a document can pay a fixed court fee; executants must pay ad valorem fee on the value of the property/consideration stated in the document.
- The Court emphasized that the statute does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary execution for court fee liability.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court follows and reinforces the Supreme Court’s settled precedent in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others (AIR 2010 SC 2807).