In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2344 of 2008 Date of decision: July 16, 2009 Puran Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Jangir Kaur alias Ajaib Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla, whereby the plaintiff- petitioner was directed to make payment of the ad-valorem court fee on the amount of sale deeds dated 20.6.2005, 20.7.2005 and 25.8.2005 executed regarding the suit property. The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he being the sole legal heir of Kaka Singh deceased, is owner and in joint possession of his 1/3 share in the suit land being his real brother, as he died unmarried and issueless. He further sought declaration to the effect that Jangir Kaur alias Ajaib Kaur is not legally wedded wife of Kaka Singh deceased. The plaintiff further averred that he had originally filed the suit on 25.3.2003 but during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 had executed the above mentioned sale deeds in favour of the defendants-respondents No.5 to 8 fraudulently in order to jeopardize his interest during the pendency of the suit and also that the plaintiff is not the party to any of the sale deeds, as such these are not binding upon him and he is also not liable to pay ad-valorem court fee. The defendants contested the suit stating that the defendant No.1 became owner of the suit property on the basis of the Will, therefore, she being bona-fide owner of the property transferred the same to defendants No.5 to 8. After the plaintiff challenged the sale deeds, the Civil Revision No. 2344 of 2008 -2- *** defendant No.1 filed an application for payment of the court fee by the plaintiff on the amount of the sale deeds. The trial court has allowed the application. Heard. Admittedly, the plaintiff earlier filed the suit for declaration on the basis of inheritance as Kaka Singh died unmarried and issueless and he being his brother was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of his property. There is no denying a fact that there was no sale deed at the time of filing the suit and the suit property was land revenue paying therefore, the question of ad-valorem court fee did not arise. The plaintiff has challenged the status of Jangir Kaur alias Ajaib Kaur stating that she is not legally wedded wife of Kaka Singh. He has also averred that Will executed by Kaka Singh in favour of defendant No.1 was not valid. Thus, it is an inheritance suit. The rights of the plaintiff accrued in the property on the death of Kaka Singh and the petitioner was not party to the sale deeds and the sale deeds being executed during the pendency of the suit certainly had to suffer on account of principle of lis-pendens, therefore, if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing his ownership, then these sale deeds will not effect his rights and the sale deeds being executed during the pendency of the suit would be meaningless. As such, plaintiff could not be asked to pay the court fee regarding those sale deeds which came into existence during the pendency of the suit. Mere fact that the plaintiff challenged those sale deeds after they came into existence does not hold the plaintiff liable to make payment of the court fee for such transactions which otherwise were not legally binding upon the petitioner as having been executed during the pendency of the lis between the parties. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by respondent No.1. July 16, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge