Mela Ram vs Narinder Kaur And Others on 6 August, 2009

C.R. No. 3406 of 2009                                                    [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                 CHANDIGARH.

                                  C.R. No. 3406 of 2009

                                  Date of Decision: August 6, 2009



Mela Ram

                                       .....Petitioner

            Vs.

Narinder Kaur and others

                                       .....Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                           -.-

Present:-   Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate
            for the respondents.

                   -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Plaintiff- petitioner has challenged the order dated February 6,

2009 allowing the application of defendant- respondents and directing the

plaintiff- petitioner to fix ad-valorem Court fee on the plaint. The plaintiff

has filed a suit for declaration that sale deed dated February 20, 2007 got
C.R. No. 3406 of 2009 [2]

executed from him by the defendant- respondent No.1 in her favour is null

and void.

In this context reference to the averments in the plaint is

necessary which has been attached with the petition as annexure P-1. The

plaintiff has not claimed possession of the property and has rather sought a

permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering

his possession over the house in dispute.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the plaintiff

does not seek consequential relief for possession of a property, ad-valorem

Court fee would not be payable. In support of his contention he relied upon

Krishna Devi and another Vs. Jaswant Singh, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 563.

Similar is the ratio of the judgment in Teja Singh Vs. Smt. Amar Kaur

and others, 2008 (1) CCC 531.

Counsel for the respondents has relied upon Niranjan Kaur

Vs. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127. The said judgment of Full Bench has

been considered in Krishna Devi’s case (supra) and Teja Singh’s case

(supra) holding that when a consequential relief of possession in a suit for

declaration challenging a registered document is not sought for, the

judgment of Full Bench in Niranjan Kaur’s case (supra) would not be

applicable.

In view of the above circumstances, the revision petition is

allowed and the impugned order dated February 6, 2009 is hereby set aside.

August 6, 2009                                      (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                               JUDGE
 C.R. No. 3406 of 2009   [3]