CR No.7233 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No.7233 of 2008
Date of decision March 9, 2009
Ved Parkash and another
....... Petitioners
Versus
Kirshan Singh and others
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The proper valuation and payment of Court fee in
suit which was objected to by the defendant is the subject matter of
revision before this Court.
2. The defendant’s contention before the Court
below which was rejected, in my view correctly rejected. There are several
averments in the plaint which refer to the transaction of sale by the first
defendnat to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as not valid. According to the
defendant the plaintiff’s contention was that the sale deed was fraudulent
and void and that there are several averments in the plaint which detail the
circumstances under which the plaintiff claims that the transaction is not
valid. He refers to the decisions of this Court in Jagdish Vs. Jagat Pal
reported in 2003 (2) Civil Court cases 635 and Ram Chander Vs.
Rattan Lal reported in 2002 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 834. In the
former decision the plaintiff was challenging the alienation made by the
CR No.7233 of 2008 2
grandfather as being without any legal necessity. In the latter, the suit had
been filed for possession and for mandatory injunction. Both these
decisions do not help the revision petitioner in any way. As the suit by the
coparcener challenging the alienation by a senior member of the family is
not a void transaction at the inception, it would be a transaction which he
could impeach either as without legal necessity or one made without
benefit of the family. Such type of decisions are not in the same league as
claimed by the plaintiff who characterizes an act of transfer by a defendant
as wholly invalid while in a transaction by a senior member of the joint
family the junior member in the family could be bound till transaction is set
aside. A plaintiff who challenges the act of sale of a defendant as not
binding on him would not require in law to be set aside. In such a case the
plaintiff does not claim under the defendant nor does law makes a
transaction binding on the plaintiff by the act of defendant. In the second
judgment referred to by him, the Court was sounding a word of caution that
a mere prayer would not be the criterion for deciding on the appropriate
Court fee payable. The fabric of the plaint with the necessary averments
shall be the guiding principle for determining the appropriate Court fee that
is payable.
3. The suit which is filed for the relief of injunction
would not require ad valorem Court fee to be paid as canvassed by the
plaintiff. The decision taken by the Court below is appropriate and the Civil
revision is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
March 9, 2009
archana