CR No. 6072 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6072 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 Shiv Kumar Goyal ...Petitioner Vs. Jai Kumar Goyal & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.J.L.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This petition assails the order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the market price of the land. Three sale deeds have been executed in this case. Sale Deed No.4553 dated 1.08.2005 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6; Sale Deed No.465 dated 15.04.2008 was executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendants No.8 & 9 and Sale Deed No.466 was executed on the same day in favour of defendants Nos.10 to 15. Property in dispute, out of which the CR No. 6072 of 2008 2 aforesaid sale deeds originated, was purchased on 21.10.1970 by Smt.Bhagwanti wife of late Ramesh Chander Aggarwal vide registered Sale Deed No.2243 dated 21.10.1970. Therefore, prima facie the same cannot be said to be coparcenary property. Allegations are that Smt.Bhagwanti in connivance with Jaidev defendant No.5 and Jai Kumar Goyal defendant No.1 appointed Shri Jai Kumar Goyal as General Power of Attorney and she through him sold the property in question to his wife Smt.Sneh Goyal (wife of Jai Kumar Goyal) vide registered sale deed No.4553 dated 1.8.2005. Jai Kumar and Smt. Bhagwanti Devi were not competent to alienate the property in question because of joint family property. Smt.Sneh Goyal further nominated Vivek Agarwal, defendant as her attorney and he executed and got registered two sale deeds bearing No.465 dated 15.4.2008 in favour of defendants No.8 and 9 and sale deed No.466 dated 15.4.2008 in favour of defendants No.10 to 15. The sale deeds which are under challenge are liable to be cancelled and the suit property is not prima facie proved to be joint family property. Actually property was in the name of Smt.Bhagwanti Devi. As such trial court rightly accepted the application of the defendants and directed the plaintiff to file ad valorem court fee. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 20.10.2011 Judge rp