Civil Revision No. 4225 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4225 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.7.2010 Ram Avtar …Petitioner Versus Sham Lal and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) There is a litigation between the progeny of Daulat Ram over his estate. All the brothers and sisters are on one side and the defendant alone is on the other side. The sons and daughters of Daulat Ram have instituted a suit against their brother Ram Avtar that they are in possession of 1/8th share each of the suit property and a partition thereof be effected. The defendant, in order to deny natural succession to his brothers and sister, has set up a plea that his mother Chhoti Devi, on the basis of a will of her husband, inherited the suit property and subsequently made a will in favour of the defendant. The defendant, in his written statement, has also denied joint possession of his brothers and sisters. After filing the written statement, the petitioner/defendant Civil Revision No. 4225 of 2010 2 has filed an application that since his brothers and sisters are not in joint possession of the suit property, they should pay ad valorem Court fee. The trial Court, took into consideration the averments made in the application and came to a conclusion that since in the plaint it has been specifically stated that all the brothers and sisters are in joint possession of the property, which belonged to their father and the suit is for partition of the property, therefore, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay Court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur to say that it was mandatory for the trial Court to look into the allegations made in the plaint to find out as to what is the substantive relief which the plaintiffs have asked for. I have perused the impugned order dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P5). The trial Court, after going through the plaint, has rightly held that the suit is for partition as the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the property. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 9, 2010 “DK”