Civil Revision No.4470 of 2005(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4470 of 2005(O & M) Date of decision 10.02.2009 Basant Singh .....Petitioner versus Gurbax Singh and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The objection by the Court to the maintainability of the suit hasframed and arose on the basis that the plaintiff who had sought for declaration that a particular sale deed was null and void was required to be set aside and ad valorem Court fees had to be paid on valuation as revealed under the sale deeds. 2. The singular point canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that he was not a party to any of the documents and therefore, the declaration that he sought for did not require to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent relies on the decision of this Court in Himanshu versus Kailash Rani 2004 RCR Page 581, Jagdish versus Jagat Pal 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 635, Bhagwat versus Mehar Chand 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 12 which referred to instances of sales by the members of a Hindu Undivided Family impeaching the alienation either of the father or the grand-father. In all such cases the sales by the manager of joint family is never void but voidable and junior member Civil Revision No.4470 of 2005(O & M) -2- would be bound unless it is not supported to be a legal necessity or a family benefit. The decisions are no answer to the situation arising in this case where the plaintiff is not impeaching the sales in any capacity as the member of the family. The learned counsel for the respondent also refers to a decision in Satwinder Kaur @ Satinder Kaur versus Surjeet Singh and others 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 055 of a person acting as an agent and the cancellation was sought for on the ground that the sale executed by the power of attorney was not valid. An attorney invariably binds the principal and he shall be deemed as a party to the document and therefore, a suit that calls for cancellation of the documents would require to be set aside and ad valorem Court fees has to be paid. This decision does not also support the case of this Court. 4. In this view of the matter, the order of the Court below directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fees on the total value of the sale consideration of the three sale deeds is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 5. The civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 10.02.2009 A. Kaundal