Civil Revision No. 669 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 669 of 2003 Date of decision:21st August, 2009 Laxman ……Petitioner Versus Ram Mehar and another ……Respondents Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Parampal Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J Prayer in this petition is to set aside the order dated 25.01.2003, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, whereby the petitioner has been directed to affix advalorem court fee on the market value of the suit land. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and others constitute a joint hindu family. The suit land is owned by the joint family and therefore, respondent no. 2 had no right to execute the sale deed dated 2.03.2001, in favour of respondent no. 1. It is submitted that as the primary relief is for declaration, as to the status of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and as to the nature of the property, the sale deed cannot be declared null and void, without grant of a declaration as to the status of the parties and the nature of the 1 Civil Revision No. 669 of 2003 property. It is further submitted that in this view of the matter, the trial court had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to affix advalorem court fees on the market value of the suit land. It is submitted that the controversy herein is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981, PLJ, 423. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits i.e. the main relief is for setting aside the sale deed and therefore, the trial court rightly directed the petitioner to pay advalorem court fees. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Before proceeding to adjudicate the legality of the impugned order, it would be necessary to state that while considering a dispute, as to court fee a court must appraise the plaint in its entirety. It would also be necessary to mention here that court fees has to be affixed on the primary relief. In cases involving ancestral/coparcenery/joint family properties and where parties seek to challenge alienation, made by co-sharers/co- parceners, the primary relief is one for declaration as to the rights of the parties and the nature of the property. Without such a declaration, a sale deed executed by a karta, a co-sharer or a coparcener cannot be held to be null and void. It would also be necessary to mention here that the dispute is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Niranjan Kaur Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981, PLJ, 423. As a consequence, as the petitioner has prayed that respondent no. 2, being karta could not alienate the suit land 2 Civil Revision No. 669 of 2003 without legal necessity, the primary relief is for declaration of the rights of the parties and the nature of the property. The relief with respect to the legality of the sale deed is therefore, consequential. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 25.01.2003, is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case, if not already decided, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.09.2009. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 21st August, 2009 SKaushik 3