Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007 Date of decision : 20.1.2008 Nirmal Singh .....Petitioner Versus Amar Singh and another ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Veneet, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit to challenge the validity of the impugned sale deeds which had been executed by his father Amar Singh in favour of defendants/respondents. The plea, in support of the challenge, was that the respondent no.1 could not have effectuated sale deeds in respect of the land which was coparcenary in character. Learned Trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 4.12.2006, held that the ad-valorem court fee was payable in the suit in view of the provisions of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court fee Act.. Reliance, in support of the view obtained, was placed Jagdish Vs. Jagat Pal 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 732. The impugned deserves to be set at naught. There is plethora of law on the point that if a coparcener challenges the sale of ancestral/coparcenary land on the plea that it was without legal necessity, Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007 -2- **** the ad-valorem court fee is not payable on it. The controversy is squarely covered by two judicial pronouncements of this Court in Smt. Rekha Vs. Suresh Kumar and others 2008 (4) RCR 430 and Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar 2007(2) RCR (CIVIL)-1. In those cases, the cause had been instituted by a coparcener to challenge the validity of a sale effected by the Karta of the joint Hindu family. It was held therein that ad-valorem court fee was not required to be paid in such a case. In the light of those rulings, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents upon Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 78 (P&H) and Ranjit Singh Vs. Balkar Singh 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 45 (P&H) is misconceived. In the light of fore-going discussion,the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The trial of the suit under reference shall proceed further without the plaintiff-petitioner' paying the ad-valorem court fee for which he is not liable to pay. January 20, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE