Nirmal Singh vs Amar Singh And Another on 20 January, 2009

Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007                             -1-

                                        ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                         Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007
                         Date of decision : 20.1.2008


Nirmal Singh                                               .....Petitioner

                                 Versus

Amar Singh and another                                     ...Respondent

                                 ****

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

Present:    Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Veneet, Advocate for the respondent.

S. D. ANAND, J.

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit to challenge the validity of

the impugned sale deeds which had been executed by his father Amar

Singh in favour of defendants/respondents. The plea, in support of the

challenge, was that the respondent no.1 could not have effectuated sale

deeds in respect of the land which was coparcenary in character.

Learned Trial Judge, vide impugned order dated 4.12.2006,

held that the ad-valorem court fee was payable in the suit in view of the

provisions of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court fee Act..

Reliance, in support of the view obtained, was placed Jagdish

Vs. Jagat Pal 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 732.

The impugned deserves to be set at naught. There is plethora

of law on the point that if a coparcener challenges the sale of

ancestral/coparcenary land on the plea that it was without legal necessity,
Civil Revision No.1287 of 2007 -2-

****

the ad-valorem court fee is not payable on it.

The controversy is squarely covered by two judicial

pronouncements of this Court in Smt. Rekha Vs. Suresh Kumar and

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

2007(2) RCR (CIVIL)-1. In those cases, the cause had been instituted by

a 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 respondents 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.

In the light of fore-going discussion,the petition shall stand

allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The trial of the suit

under reference shall proceed further without the plaintiff-petitioner’ paying

the ad-valorem court fee for which he is not liable to pay.

January 20, 2009                                      (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                       JUDGE