Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjeewan Singh vs Jagar Singh And Ors. on 21 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR261
JUDGMENT J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 22-8-89 whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration of Rs. 63,000/-.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration challenging the alienations made by his father Bhagat Singh vide sale deeds dated 9-12-1980 and 10-12-1980 alleging them to be illegal, void and without consideration and hence ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff also claimed possession of the suit land.
3. One of the preliminary issues framed was whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court found that it is the substance of the plaint which should be seen and not the mere form and in this case the plaintiff is seeking substantial relief of declaring null and void the sale deeds dated 9 12-1980 and 1012-1980 which were for the consideration of Rs. 63,000/- and as such the plaintiff is required to affix ad valorem Court fee on this amount before challenging the two sale deeds in question.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal and thus the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under the Hindu Law challenging the alienations 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 valorem 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. Consequently, this petition succeeds the impugned order is set aside and the trial Courts directed to proceed with the suit on merits in accordance with law.
5. The parties are directed to appear in trial Court on 10-12-1989.