C.R.No.2293 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2293 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.7.2010 Ms.Mehak Vasishta ...Petitioner vs Jodha Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 whereby the petitioner has been asked to affix ad valorem court fee as per her share claimed in the suit. As per the averments, petitioner being a minor has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner to the extent of 1/6th share in the property left by late Smt.Vasumati Vasishta including House No.2137 Sector 15-C and SCO No.32 Sector 16-D, Chandigarh being her natural/legal heir, and further the alleged Will dated 23.3.2006 in favour of respondent No.1 is illegal and a fabricated document having no effect on the rights and title of the plaintiff, and for separate possession after partition of the property as per her share with further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Admittedly the defendant-respondents have not filed written statement so far. However, an application was filed directing the plaintiff- petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court C.R.No.2293 of 2010 2 Fees Act. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 4.12.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee, as she is seeking a declaration of her rights of ownership in the property in dispute and a consequential relief of separate possession by way of partition/sale of the property in dispute, as partition by meets and bounds may be prohibited in Chandigarh and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to affix court fee in a suit for declaration as per the schedule provided under the aforesaid Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant- respondents has vehemently contested this petition submitting that once a declaratory decree is sought with consequential relief of possession the plaintiff/petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee as provided under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the argument raised on behalf of the respondents is without any substances. From the averments made in the suit, it is clearly made out that the petitioner is seeking a declaration of her rights in the suit property and in case she is held to be a co-owner, as a consequence, she will also be entitled to a decree of joint possession to the extent of her share and therefore in these circumstances, it cannot be held that she is liable to pay ad valorem court fee as argued. Thus, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is made clear that respondents are at liberty to take any legal objection available to them in their written statement and claim trial on the triable issues. C.R.No.2293 of 2010 3 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 30, 2010 rk