IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.762/2011 Date of decision: 3.3.2011 Amarjit Kaur and another ....................Petitioners v. Surjit Kaur @ Jito and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.RM Ravi,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners assailing the order dated 8.11.2010 (P7) whereby the application of the defendant/respondents 5 to 8 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint for not affixing ad valorem court fee has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the plaintiffs/petitioners who are the real sisters have assailed the sale deed executed by their mother Smt.Dhan Kaur in favour of her grandson / respondent no.4-Harvinder Singh, nephew of the plaintiffs without seeking consequential relief of possession. It is thus contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously allowed the application and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to affix court fee on the value of the sale deed. Relies upon a decision of this Court in Surinder Singh and others v. Narinder Singh, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 139. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not persuaded to accept the plea of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned trial court in my view has rightly noticed that in the present case declaratory relief sought by the plaintiffs/petitioners cannot be granted till the sale deed dated 5.7.2006 executed by the owner of the land-Smt.Dhan Kaur in favour of defendant no.4-Harvinder Singh for sale consideration of Rs.33,50,000/- is cancelled. It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of the sale deed Smt.Dhan Kaur- mother of the plaintiffs was owner of the land. The case set up by the plaintiffs/petitioners is that she had died intestate whereas the plea set up by the defendant no.4 is that a sale deed was validly executed for a consideration during her lifetime and therefore, the court fee is required to be affixed. In the cited judgment reliance has been placed upon decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 564,wherein the appellant petitioners had alleged pre-existing right i.e. Coparcenary rights and therefore, in the event of the petitioner not seeking possession, the requirement of affixing court fee was negatived. The facts of the present case are entirely different. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 3.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge