C.R. No. 4230 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4230 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 14, 2009 M/s Unitec Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Lachho and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defendant- petitioner has purchased the property on December 30, 2005 but now the plaintiffs have colluded with the vendors to defeat the rights of the defendant- petitioner. Without affixing the ad-valorem Court fee, the sale deed has been challenged. C.R. No. 4230 of 2009 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment of Ravinder Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 1 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that since the property is, rightly or wrongly, claimed to be ancestral property by the females of a family and the same is agricultural land situated in Haryana, prima facie, ad-valorem Court fee is not required to be paid. Since disputed questions of facts are involved in the case and the adjudication of disputed facts will determine whether ad-valorem Court fee is required to be affixed, no ground is made out for interfering in the impugned order. However, it is clarified that the trial Court will frame an issue regarding the adequacy of the Court fee affixed and will decide the same on merits. In case the same is raised in the written statement, the affixation of the Court fee ultimately will be subject to the final decision on the said issue, if framed. In case, ultimately the trial Court arrives at a conclusion that the Court fee is required to be affixed depending upon the merits of the case, the plaintiff- respondents will be required to pay the Court fee in accordance with law. Disposed of. September 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE