Balvinder Kaur And Others v. Jiwan Lal And Others

J.V. Gupta, CJ. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated September 19, 1988, whereby the plaintiff has been directed to make up the deficiency in Court-fee. 2. It is a suit where the sons have challenged the alienations made by their father under the Hindu law on the allegations that the same were without any legal necessity. In the written statement, one of the pleas taken was that since the suit of the plaintiffs was for getting the sale deeds set aside, they were liable to pay the ad volorem Court-fee on the sale price given in the said documents. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were liable to pay the ad volorem Court-fee according to article I Schedule I of the Court-fees Act on the price given in the impugned deeds. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition in his Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited Gurjeewan Singh v. Jagar Singh (1990-1) Punjab Law Reported 261 : 1990 Civil Court Cases 240 (P&H), to contend that since the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs under the Hindu Law to challenge the alienations made by their father n the ground of being without legal necessity, they being the members of the joint Hindu family had a right to get the transactions declared null and void if the same were not justified. That being so, the question of paying ad valorem Court fee on the price given in the impugned deeds did not arise. 4. On the other hand, the learned for counsel the defendants-respondents cited Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2384 and Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryan 368, to contend that ad volorem Court fee was payable in such like cases. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The case is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Gurjewan Singh's case (Supra). The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case and are clearly distinguishable. 6. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the issue with regard to Court-fee is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on September 4, 1990. Petition allowed.