Kulwinder Kaur And Others vs Sukhwant Singh And Others on 25 January, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 8]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwinder Kaur And Others vs Sukhwant Singh And Others on 25 January, 2010

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

CR No.2432 of 2008 (O&M)                                -1-




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                   ****
                                     CR No.2432 of 2008 (O&M)
                                     DATE OF DECISION: 25.01.2010.
                                   ****

Kulwinder Kaur and others                                . . . . Petitioners

                                    VS.

Sukhwant Singh and others                              . . . . Respondents

                                   ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

                                   ****

Present:    Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 9.

                                   ****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kaithal, on an application moved by defendant No.7 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in the garb of a suit for partition, the plaintiffs/petitioners are assailing the validity of the sale deeds, which are alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7, who has executed the sale deeds in favour of defendants No.8 and 9.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Lakhwinder Singh-the predecessor of Rajwant Singh s/o Sameer Singh and are not the party to the sale deed. Therefore, they are not liable to affix ad valorem Court fee even CR No.2432 of 2008 (O&M) -2- in the garb of partition of the suit of the sale deeds, which have been executed firstly by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 and then by defendant No.7 in favour of defendants No.8 and 9.

In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Ravinder Kumar Versus Narinder Kumar and others" 2007 (2) LJR 219, in which it has been held that if plaintiff is not a party to the sale deeds and was claiming ownership and consequential relief then ad valorem Court fee shall not be payable as he cannot be held to be bound by the act of a third party.

However, learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9 has argued that suit is not maintainable without affixation of the Court fee because the ultimate result of the suit is of declaring the sale deeds by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.7 and ultimately in favour of defendants No.8 and 9 as illegal.

I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

The law laid down by this Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra) clearly shows that if a person is not a party to the sale deed, he is not required to affix ad valorem Court fee for the purpose of challenging the sale deed. No law contrary to the above has been cited by the counsel for the respondents.

In view of the above, the revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 17.3.2008 is set aside.




                                        (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
January 25, 2010                              JUDGE
Vivek

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court