Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh And Others vs Smt. Suman Lata And Others on 22 December, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
C.R. No. 4362 of 2009 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 4362 of 2009
Date of Decision: Dec. 22,2011
Ramesh and others................................... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Suman Lata and others .................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.S.Sihota, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
...
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge is to the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad vide which the application under Order 148 read with Section 151 CPC for enlargement of time to pay the ad-valorem court fee has been dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of three sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void and cancellation of the same. The plaintiffs were directed to fix ad-valorem court fees on the market value of the suit C.R. No. 4362 of 2009 [ 2 ] property which is not less than `60 lacs or in the alternative the court fee on the sale consideration of the said sale deeds.
In reply to the application, the plaintiffs stated that they were co-sharers and in physical possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share of Bhoop Singh since 1951 till date. The defendants No. 2 to 8 had no legal right and authority to execute the impugned sale-deeds beyond their share. The plaintiffs being in possession are not bound by the illegal act of the 3rd party and no ad-valorem court fee was liable to be paid. The trial Court placing reliance on the judgment in Jagdish v. Jagat Pal 2000 (2) PLJ 268 held that the plaintiffs are liable to make the payment of ad-valorem court fee. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Others 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 564 and it has been held by the Supreme Court that where the non-executant of the sale- deed seeks annulment of deed without seeking the consequential relief of possession he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Narinder Kumar v. Naresh Kumar and others 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 298.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners are co-sharers and in possession of 1/5th share of the property of C.R. No. 4362 of 2009 [ 3 ] Bhoop Singh. They are only seeking cancellation of the sale- deeds of respondents No. 9 to 14. They have not sought any consequential relief of possession as they are already in possession of the suit property.
This Civil Revision is allowed. The order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad is set aside. The respondents, if aggrieved, are at liberty to approach this Court.
22.12.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE