IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3109 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.5.2011 Mohinder Singh and others … Petitioners versus Jagdish Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners are the defendants in the suit for declaration titled as Jagdish Singh v. Mohinder Singh and others. They are aggrieved with order dated 28.3.2011 by dint of which the preliminary issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff that he is not required to affix ad-valorem court-fee on the sale-deed that has been challenged. The facts are that plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendants 2 and 3. He challenged sale-deed dated 26.8.2004 by defendant No.1 in favour of his two sons, i.e. defendants 2 and 3 on the ground that the suit property was ancestral in nature and the sale by defendant No.1 (Karta) was without any legal necessity. He being a member of the joint Hindu family, is also a coparcener and has a right to have the sale-deed declared null and void. The stand of the defendants is that the land under the sale was self-acquired of defendant No.1. The trial Court while deciding the preliminary issue has observed that it cannot be said at this stage that the suit land is ancestral or self-acquired property of defendant No.1 but since the plaintiff has challenged the sale-deed of the land stated to be ancestral, being a coparcener, followed the ratio laid down in Prince Minor through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Rekha v. Suresh Kumar and others 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 430, wherein it has been C.R. No. 3109 of 2011 -2- held that the plaintiff who has challenged the sale-deed being a coparcener, is not required to affix ad-valorem court-fee. In the said case, the ratio of Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar and others 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 1, has been followed wherein it has been held that once the petitioner-plaintiff was not party to the sale-deeds and was claiming ownership and consequential relief on the basis that he was a coparcener, ad-valorem court- fee was not payable and he cannot be held to be bound by the act of third party. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition stands dismissed. May 10, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE