C.R. No.6672 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6672 of 2005 Date of Decision: 27.2.2008 Bhag Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Prem Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 12.11.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kharar, directing the petitioners to affix Court fee on the sale consideration. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the property in dispute is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and the petitioners have filed a suit for a declaration that the suit land is coparcenary property the learned trial Court erred in directing the petitioners to affix ad valorem court fee. The question as to affixation of court fee is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgement of this Court reported as Niranjan Kaur V. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that as the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the sale deeds be set aside, the fact that they seek a declaration as to the ancestral nature of the property or that the petitioners were not a party to the sale deeds, are irrelevant and, C.R. No.6672 of 2005 2 therefore, the petitioners should be directed to affix ad-valorem court fee on the value of the sale consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As held in Niranjan Kaur V. Nirbhigan Kaur (supra), while considering a dispute regarding affixation of court fee, a Court is required to peruse averments in the plaint, so as to determine the substantive relief. It was also held that where the substantive relief is for a declaration that the suit property is coparcenary and is accompanied by a relief for setting aside of a sale deed the latter relief would be ancillary and, therefore, Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act and not Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act would apply. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the primary relief is for a declaration that the property in suit is coparcenary. The prayer to set aside the sale deeds is ancillary. The learned trial Court, therefore, erred in directing the petitioners to affix court fee on the value of the sale deeds. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2005 is set aside and the petitioners are directed to affix court fee, in accordance with Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act. 27.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE