C.R.No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: November , 2009 Mehar Chand and another ...........Petitioners Versus Megh Nath and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondents -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide which the trial Court has directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to make the deficiency good regarding court fee. Plaintiffs -Mehar Chand and Hans Raj have filed the suit for declaration challenging the sale deeds dated 19.3.2004 and 1.4.2004, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, on the ground that C.R.No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the same were without any legal necessity and the suit property was coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Vide impugned order dated 12.3.2007(Annexure P3), the plaintiffs have been directed to affix the Court fee on the market value of the property as depicted in the sale deeds. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit property was coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs and defendants and, hence, plaintiffs were not required to affix ad -valoerm court fee. Plaintiffs were required to affix the Court fee as if it was a mere suit for declaration. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on Naresh Kumar and another vs. Hakam Singh and others 1979 PLJ 28; Gurjeewan Singh vs. Jagar Singh and others 1990 Civil Court Cases 240 (P&H); Balvinder Kaur and others vs. Jiwan Lal and others 1990 Civil Court Cases 768 (P&H); Bhag Singh vs, Jarnail Singh and others 1990 Civil Court Cases 666 (P&H); Rajinder Kaur and another vs. Daljit Kaur and others 2006(4) Civil Court Cases 454 (P&H) amd Ravinder Kumar vs. Narinder Kumar 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 1 . Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed qua his share in the suit property and, hence, plaintiffs were required to affix ad-valoerm court fee. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ranjit Singh and others vs. Balkar Singh and another (2000)2 PLR 382; Om Parkash vs. Inderawati and others (2002)2 PLR 853 and Niranjan Kaur vs. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127. C.R.No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled that the Court in deciding the question of Court fee has to look into the allegations made in the plaint to find out as to what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. Thus, in each case, the Court has to find out the real relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Where the main relief is that of the cancellation of the deed, and the declaration if any is only a surplusage, the case would not be covered under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Because in a suit under that clause, the main relief is that of a declaration and the consequential relief is just ancillary. In case the main relief in the suit is held to be that of cancellation of the sale deed, then the case is not covered by Section 7(iv)(c) and the only provision applicable is article I Schedule I of the Act. In order to bring the case under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act the main and substantive relief should be that of a declaration and the consequential relief should be ancillary thereto. Moreover, if no consequential is claimed or could be claimed in the suit, then section 7(iv) (c) will not be attracted. Plaintiffs have filed the suit alleging that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family, coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1 could not sell the property without any legal necessity. Vide sale deeds in question, defendant No.1 has sold 10 bighas and 8 biswas of land, out of the total land jointly owned by the parties. Admittedly, defendant No.5 has 1/6th share in the total land jointly owned by the parties. A perusal of the sale deed shown, during the course C.R.No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) 4 of arguments, reveals that the total land holdings of the parties is 65 bighas and 10 biswas. Out of the said total holdings, defendant No.1 has 1/6th share. Hence, vide sale deeds in question, defendant No.1 has not sold more than his share out of the suit property. It is not the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had sold his share in the suit property or had sold more than his share in the joint property. A copy of the plaint has been shown during the course of arguments.Since the plaintiffs were challenging the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 qua his share in the suit property, the plaintiffs are required to affix the Court fee at market value of the property depicting in the sale deeds. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November , 2009 arya C.R.No. 817 of 2008 (O&M) 5