Civil Revision No.411 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.411 of 2009 Date of Decision:-July 28,2009 Joginder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the petitioner-defendant No.2, has been dismissed. The petitioner's objection before the trial Court was that since the sale deed executed in his favour by the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent-plaintiffs is under challenge, they are liable to affix ad-valorem Court fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 25.5.2005 bearing No.453/1. The trial Court, however, has dismissed the application Civil Revision No.411 of 2009 2 after relying upon a catena of judgments passed by this Court wherein it has been held that when a declaratory suit has been filed by a son or a coparcener claiming the property to be a coparcenary property which could not have been sold except for a legal necessity, the pre-dominating relief would be the declaration regarding coparcenary nature of the property, though with a consequential relief to set aside the sale deed, if found to have been executed without any legal necessity. In the case in hand also, the respondent-plaintiffs have sought a similar declaration. No interference in the impugned order is, therefore, called for . Dismissed. However, the observations made herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (Surya Kant) Judge 28.7.2009 AS