Paramjeet Singh, J.Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad whereby application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") for rejecting the plaint, has been partly allowed and the petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deed dated 10.11.2010 and Titamanama deed dated 16.11.2010. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents challenging sale deed No. 8863 dated 10.11.2010, titamanama deed No. 9184 dated 16.11.2010 and mutation No. 13449 executed in favour of the defendants being illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights, title and interests of the plaintiffs. In pursuance to the notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 put in appearance and moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint as the plaintiffs have failed to pay ad valorem court fee. Vide impugned order dated 07.08.2013, the trial Court allowed the application and the petitioners-plaintiffs have been directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of sale deed dated 10.11.2010 and Titamanama deed dated 16.11.2010. Hence, this revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have only 1/9th share each i.e. total 2/9th share in the property in dispute and they have challenged the sale deed to that extent only.

3. A perusal of the record as well as plaint shows that it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioners are challenging sale deed to the extent of their share only. Be that as it may, since the petitioners are executants of the sale deed and they are challenging the sale deed, they are bound to pay ad valorem court fee. It does not make any difference if the sale deed is executed by the owner in person or through General Power of Attorney. Even the sale deed through general power of attorney will be deemed to have been executed by the original owner.

4. The Honble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, has held as under:-

5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab (Act for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs. 19/50 on plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction, court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which provides:

7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits: The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

(iv) in suits - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought:

Provided that minimum court-fee in each case shall be thirteen rupees. Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of this section.

The second proviso to section 7(iv) of the Act will apply in this case and the valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of the said section. Clause (v) provides that where the relief is in regard to agricultural lands, court fee should be reckoned with reference to the revenue payable under clauses (a) to (d) thereof; and where the relief is in regard to the houses, court fee shall be on the market value of the houses, under clause (e) thereof.

6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding o n him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to A and B -- two brothers. A executes a sale deed in favour of C. Subsequently A wants to avoid the sale. A has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If A, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if B, a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.

7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.

5. In the present case also, the petitioners-plaintiffs were participant in the execution of the sale deed, therefore, the court fee payable is ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration. Thus, this matter is squarely covered by Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singhs case (supra).

6. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, if the petitioners at some stage make statement to restrict their claim only qua their share, then the Court will look into the aspect of payment of court fee by the petitioners as per the share sold by them.