C.R.No.1611 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1611 of 2008. Decided on: October 13, 2009. Ravinder Singh and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Prem Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 & 8. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 21.01.2008, Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib, has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendants-respondents and directed the plaintiffs-petitioners to pay ad valorem Court fee in a suit for declaration and injunction challenging the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.5 & 6, along with other co-shares dated 11.01.2006, in favour of defendant Nos.7 & 8, on the ground that the subject matter of the sale deed is joint coparcenary ancestral property of . . . 1 C.R.No.1611 of 2008 plaintiffs-petitioners with their great grand fathers, their grand father Gurpal Singh and their father Mohan Singh with their uncles Karam Singh and Naib Singh. The plaintiffs claim that Tarlok Singh was the original owner and the plaintiffs are great grandsons of said Tarlok Singh. A perusal of the plaint, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, indicates that the possession of the property has not been claimed by the plaintiffs-petitioners as they claim themselves to be in possession of the same. They have also sought an injunction against the defendants from taking possession of the land covered by the sale deed dated 11.01.2006, illegally. As per law laid down in Gurjeevan Singh Vs.Jagar Singh and others, 1990 Civil Court Cases, 240 (P&H), ad valorem Court fee is not required to be affixed where the challenge is to the alienation of joint Hindu Family Property. In Bhag Singh Vs. Jarnail Singh and others, 1990(2) RRR 262 (P&H), it has been held that where plaintiff is in possession, ad valorem Court fee is not required to be affixed. It has been informed by counsel for the parties that written statement has already been filed by respondent Nos.7 & 8. In view of the ratio of the judgments in Gurjeevan Singh and Bhag Singh (supra), it is apparent that ad valorem Court fee is not required to be affixed as per the contents in the plaint and the impugned order dated 21.01.2008, is hereby set aside. However, it is observed that in case an objection regarding the Court fee is taken in the written statement and on the . . . 2 C.R.No.1611 of 2008 basis of an issue framed in that context, it is ultimately held that the property which is the subject matter of the sale deed was not coparcenary property or that the plaintiffs-petitioners had not been in possession of the property, it will always be open to the Court finally deciding the case to issue a direction for affixation of Court fee in accordance with law. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 13, 2009. rka . . . 3