CIVIL APPEAL 6283 of 2011 on 31 December 2007

C.R. No.6283 of 2011 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.6283 of 2011 (O&M)Date of decision: February 01, 2013

Heena Mathon

...Petitioner

Versus

Mohinder Singh & others...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

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

Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for

Mr. Sugreev Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 & 5.

Rajan Gupta, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order is unsustainable. Plaintiff never sought relief of possession. Thus, ad valorem court fee is not payable. He has relied upon judgment reported as Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh &

others, AIR 2010 SC 2807.

Plea has been opposed by counsel representing respondents. He has submitted that plaintiff has cleverly worded the suit. If prayer clause is seen, she is seeking declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land to the extent of 1/6[th] share. She has also challenged sale-deed dated 31.12.2007. Thus, payment of ad valorem

C.R. No.6283 of 2011 2

court fee cannot be exempted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

Plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 31.12.2007 executed by her grand father in favour of her paternal uncle. She has prayed for declaration that she is owner to the extent of 1/6[th] share. Though plaintiff claims that she is in possession of the property, stand of the defendants is that they are in possession of the property. Thus, it appears plaintiff is seeking ownership of 1/6[th] share of the land as well as possession thereof. Trial court has rightly directed her to pay ad valorem court fee. I find no legal infirmity with the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment in Surhid Singh's case (supra) is not applicable. Revision petition is hereby dismissed.

February , 2013'rajpal'

(RAJAN GUPTA)

JUDGE