7a 43 J 9 Civil RevisionN41e5571 of2009 1 S llV TFIE HlGH COURT OF PUNIJAB AND IIARYANA AT CIlANDIGARH Civil Revision N5571 of2009 Decidedon Jagdeep Kaur O others eeePetitioners 1 C Versus 0 0 I Shingara Singh82others 464 IC I CORAM t HONBLE MRe JUSTICE KCPURI Z S Present 2 Mre HePeSeGhumanAdvocatefor thepetlners Mre HeReVermaAdvocatefor respondents Noel and 2 I KCPURI J 08 C This revision petitionhas becn filed for quashingthe W2 Z impugnedorder dated 170702009 lnexure 131 passedby Sll 1 Ll Mandeep Mittal PCS Civil JudgeJunior Division Nabha vide which 1 the plaintiffsIIOW have been ordercd to pay the ad valorem court fee on thc plainte Brieflystated the plaintiHs now flled suit for declaration ttl the effect that the plainliffs and proforma Noe3were joint owners and in joint Ill equalsharesof Iand 5 bigha1 biswa comprising in khewat Noe20khatuni Noe31and khasraNoe39mentionedin the plaintsituated at villageJhambali Khas Tehsil Nabha District Patiala OsaUeeed n nnw Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 15: 18 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 C Civil Revision Noe5571of 20119 2 1 that the propertyis anccstral and 0Iparnary propcrtin the Inds of dcfendantl rcspondentNo2 which IIas been inherited by defendantl Nt2 Oom his forealers No has alreadytransferred lhe Iand inhcd by him from his fonfathers 10 his three sons namcly Darbara Singh Gurbachan Singhand respondentIdefcndanl Nol 1Il equalshares Thc peioners and 0 proforma defendant No are joint OWncrs and in joint C I 01 the Iand from his falher Rauli who inhcrited the Sllme C5 I from his falhcr Nanda Sllll of BlltlllI SingheSo in this manner thc propertyIS ancestral and coparcenary propcrly RespondcntNo2 Z transferred le suit Iand tu respondcntNt vide salc deed N57 C datcd 070 1 11118illegallyiintl ttnlawfullyThe allcgedSlllc dccd is null I 08 and void and wil houl consideraon and wiout Imvingnyrighto do oo sll in favour IIf No1 llencethc prcsentsuitWllS flled by 7 1 Ihe peti0001 Om ResjlndentsNo l and 2 moved an applicion uilcr Order 7 Rulc11 CPC for rcjcctionofthc plaintonthe grtIundthatad valorem court fee has not been aITixed Oll the plainlbythc TlIc Iearned lrilil Ctliirl llfler hearingboth thc sides acceptedtlie applicationu nder Seetitln71iv1of Courts Fecs Act and directed thc pIaintiffs 10 pay Ille iltl 11lIIIlrClllCOllrt leee Icclingd issatisflcd with tlw order dl1 17172009 passed by the Clvil Jutlge 1unior DivisionlNab prcscnt rcVISIIlIl petitionhas hren Oled by the pctioncrse Icarncd counsel for the petiIionershas suIImitted that ISSlIC of paymcntof ad valorem court fce Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 15: 18 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 4 Civil RevisitIn No571 of 2009 3 A Ill 11 ftIrm was pcndingbeftIrc thc llivision Bench 01 Ihis Courl and the same has been dcced in OvU Rewhn1 N22 f2009 OcMl Iitled IIS Ilara Singli IlSe GuIlall Il 4 others on 0305211111Sllkccpingin vicwthe authorityof114111IllctIleAjlexCtJllll in 5rill Singll111i1S04 11514S1gh 0nd om CA 1 0 No281 113 01211111 decided on 290321110whcrein il has been held by 0 IheDivision Bench Ihat ad vaIorem court fee is not reqIiiretl Io IleplIitle 0 I Soit IS conlendctl Ihat the impugncdordcr is legaland uiawful in O I VICW of Ihe tlccision of Division I3enchand llonblc SuprellleCtllllt 118 detailed above Z 1n replyto abovc Iearned counscl for the has r submittrd thal thc order of Ihc Irial courts just and It IS I furthcr contendcd that the pctitioncrs want to avoid the court fee on Ihc 08 C groundthal the Same is rcsuIt of fraud and so they11 rC readyto pay the 7 court fee in aceordancc with the sale deed In authory sl Qm lgll 17Se80ji441Pltd 44140AI8lC34 Ihc Ilonble SupremeCtltirl hlls held tllat wherc the has been nlade by fathcr necds ttl be avoided by l he Sotl in a dcclaratoryform Thc ad valorem courl fec is Iiable t1Ihe paide hlive eonsidcred the submissionsmade by Icarned eounsel for both the sides and have gone IhnIughthe rccords of llle caSee IIr delcrmination of thequestion of Courl fcc the nature oflhe suit and consequentialrclieves are relcvanl The plainliffshave Olcd the suifor declaratn to Ule eNcct thal Ihe pIaintTs a1 proformnmdddantNo3 are joint owncrsand Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 15: 18 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 Ciril RevisitIn Noe5571of2009 4 in joint possessionIn equalsharcs of Iand mcasuring5I11Ile1513 in khcwal No20 Khatauni Noe31 Kllllsril Ntle391 3141N5 11 41 40161 4211 14301 11 144Jl 1453m214631 1471 163ll situated at villageJhamhali Kluis 1ehsil Nahha Ilislrict Patiala as per jamabandi for thc year 200121M12and the sale 1 0 tlced No857 daled 71 2008 exeeutcd bv defendanl Noa2 in 6111Iurof 0 defendant Nol and mutaonNo258 lnclioncd on Ule blIsis of 0 sale deed are iilegal null and void abnitio unlawful I inoIlCrlllivenoncst and are the result of fraud and 11nt1nlll bintlinguptln the rightsand claitns tlf llle jliliitilin qua tlte Iitrld Z notetl above and further the revcnue cntrics are IiableIo be eorrceted lll r Ihe nitmes clf plaintf8and suit for permanenlinuncfitln I thc defcndant Nol ftm aIienatin nsfcnin Ig 08 00 llr disposing of the above said Iand lcgall to any llodyelse on t he basis of illegalentries incorporated in the rcvenue record and sale decd CL mcntioned ahove in any manncr whatsoevere lhe Division Bcnch of this Court Ill Civil Revision No22 of 2110908iMl titled as D SinghscaseO hcld that whcre there is a suit for declaration and therc is no praycr for canccMatn ofsale deed in that casc ad valoreln court fec is not payableThe basisof the siiid judglnentof Division Bench is the recent autoriy of in Civil AppealNoe281 013of 2010 dccided on 2932010 In the prcscntCilSC 110 relief is soughtfor canceation of the sale dccd a nd as such thc authorityof S7IamsherSs case Ir relicd upon by thc trial C41url is nol Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 15: 18 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 47 Civil RevisionNtl557111f2009 5 Ay In view of the abovc discussion reVlSlOll petitionstands and the ordcr of the trial Court directingthc plnint to pay lld valoremcourt fce is hcld to be legaland snds sct asi and Ihe trial Court is directed to gctthc court fce paidaccordingto the scction 7ivlel read with Section7Il of of the Court Fces Act with reference 1 to Ihe pIainrsavcrmenlss 0 A copy of this judgmentbe scnt to the trial Court for striet 0 empliances t0 P I May2442010 Y Z eJlJDGlll SV Q 7 I C45 Oo l 1 7 ll Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 15: 18 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document