IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2182 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 21, 2009 Raghubir Singh and another. … Petitioners Versus Lakhmir Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. S.D. Anand, (J.) The plaintiffs – petitioners are in revision against the impugned order dated 11.03.2008 vide which, while allowing a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants – respondents, the learned Trial Court held that the ad- valorem court fees is payable on the consideration indicated in the impugned sale deed. The plaintiffs – petitioners had, otherwise, applied for the invalidation of the impugned sale deed dated 13.07.2007 which had been executed by Jai Ram (respondent No.5) in favour of C.R. No. 2182 of 2008 defendant – respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The allegation, in the context, was that the impugned sale was invalid as the property aforementioned was coparcenery in the hands of the vendor who was the karta of the Joint Hindu Family which the plaintiffs – petitioners were a part by birth. The point in issue is squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in Ravinder Kumar vs. Narinder Kumar and others, 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 1, Sham Lal vs. Sudesh Kumar and another, 2007(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 658, Smt. Rekha Vs. Suresh Kumar and others, 2008(4) RCR 430, Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal vs. Arya Mittar and others, 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 798 and Bhagwan Kaur and others vs. Amrik Singh and others, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 531. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 195 – Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur vs. Surjeet Singh and others and 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 449 – Smt. Beena and others vs. Rajinder Kumar and others is misconceived inasmuch as those cases were based upon entirely different facts. In those cases, the sale had not been effected by the Karta of the family. The plea raised by the plaintiff (in the former case) in that case was that the sale deed impugned therein (which had been entered into by the General Attorney of the plaintiff) was fraud and forgery. Insofar as Smt. Beena’s case (supra) is concerned, the relevant paras are reproduced as under:- “14. It may be noticed that in Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh and others, 1990(2) RRR 291: 1990 2 C.R. No. 2182 of 2008 PLJ 234 it has been held that where the challenge is under the Hindu Law to the alienation made by his father on the ground the same being without legal necessity and without consideration, the suit for declaration and the possession is by way of consequential relief, wherein it was held to the following effect: “The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under the Hindu Law challenging the alienation made by his father on the ground of being without legal necessity and without consideration. The plaintiff being the member of the joint family has a right to have the transactions declared null and void, if they are not justified. That being so, the question of paying ad volarem court fee on the sale price did not arise. For all intents and purposes, the suit is for declaration and the possession is by way of consequential relief.” 15. Prior to the said judgment, this Court in Anup Kumar v. Bhagwant etc., 1972 PLR 156 has held that in a suit challenging the alienation of joint Hindu family property effected by the father of the plaintiff as not binding on him, with a prayer for grant of decree for possession of the property in dispute jointly with the father falls under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. It was held that the remedy of possession is essentially a 3 C.R. No. 2182 of 2008 consequential relief following from and arising of the declaration sought by the plaintiff. It was held to the following effect:- Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act is applicable to a case where a declaration is sought and as a consequential relief some other relief is also prayed for. The case directly on the point, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me, is Harkishan Lal vs. Barkat Ali. That was an exactly similar case in which it was held that a suit by a son for a declaration that the sale of joint Hindu family property effected by his father had not been made for family necessity and was not binding on him, and for joint possession of the property sold along with his father, falls under Section 7(iv)(c) in as much as an alienation by the father of a Hindu joint family is not void but is only avoidable at the instance of his sons, for the alienation may be binding on the sons if it was made for necessity or for the benefit of the joint Hindu family or for any other reason by which under Hindu Law such an alienation may bind the sons. It is, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff to get rid of the voidable document by having the Court declare that in the circumstances of the case it should be avoided at the plaintiffs request. 4 C.R. No. 2182 of 2008 The possession which he then claims flows from and is a necessary consequence of the relief claimed, namely, that the document does not stand in the way of the plaintiff. The remedy of possession, therefore, is essentially a consequential relief flowing from and arising out of the declaration sought by the plaintiff.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be upheld. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The plaintiffs – petitioners shall not be liable to pay ad- valorem court fees at the trial. March 21, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5