In a revision petition challenging a lower court order rejecting a plaint for lack of court fee, the High Court held that a person not party to a sale deed need not affix ad valorem fee when challenging its validity. The impugned order was set aside.
Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.3.2008 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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) JUDGE
January 25, 2010 Vivek
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person not being a party to a sale deed is required to affix ad valorem court fee when challenging the validity of the sale deed in a partition suit.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the plaint on grounds of non-affixation of court fee should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravinder Kumar Versus Narinder Kumar and othersRelied on¶21
2007 (2) LJR 219
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulwinder Kaur and others
Sukhwant Singh and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
