Ajaib Singh And Another vs Gurpreet Singh And Others on 15 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Civil Revision No.194 of 2009                               -1-

                                        ****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                            Civil Revision No.194 of 2009
                            Date of decision : 15.1.2009

Ajaib Singh and another                                     .....Petitioners

                   Versus

Gurpreet Singh and others                                   ...Respondents

                                 ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present:    Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

S. D. ANAND, J.

Minors plaintiffs (respondents No. l and 2 herein) filed the

impugned suit through their mother to obtain the invalidation of the

impugned sale deed vide which respondent no.3 had sold off coparcenary

property without any legal necessity. The petitioners filed therein an

application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint

as ad-valorem court fee had not been paid by the plaintiffs-respondents.

In response thereto, the plea raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-

respondents was that ad-valorem court fee was not payable in view of the

fact that the plaintiffs-respondents were not a party to that sale deed.

Relying upon Smt. Rekha Vs. Suresh Kumar and others

2008 (4) RCR 430 and Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar 2007(2)

RCR (CIVIL)-1, the learned Trial Court negatived the plea put forward by

the defendant-petitioner.

The law laid down in Smt. Rekha’s case and Ravinder

Kumar’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances

of the present case. In those cases, the suit had been filed by a
Civil Revision No.194 of 2009 -2-

****
coparcener to challenge the validity of a sale effected by the Karta of the

joint Hindu family. It was held therein that ad-valorem court fee was not

required to be paid in such a case. In the light of those rulings, the

reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Anil Rishi

Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 78 (P&H) and Ranjit

Singh Vs. Balkar Singh 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 45 (P&H) is

misconceived.

There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the

impugned order which is in accord with the law laid down by this Court in

Smt. Rekha’s case and Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra).

The petition shall stand dismissed in limine.

January 15, 2009                                     (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                      JUDGE

Leave a Comment Cancel