SHALIMAR ESTATE Vs. DAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners cites Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 135 and submits that the respondents in the garb of the present plaint are seeking consequential relief and they must pay the ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the property. Reliance was also placed on Surat Singh v. Jagdish and others, 1979 PLR 82, a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, where a suit for cancellation of the decree was filed on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and collusion and the plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree. Yet reliance was also placed on Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127.

(2.) I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and, in my opinion, the judgments cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. Court fee has to be paid as per the allegations made in the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that the sale deed dated 10.11.1999 is illegal, null and void and have no effect on the statutory rights of the plaintiffs particularly the entire villagers of village Sarangpur, UT Chandigarh and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from taking forcible possession and from raising any construction over the land so purchased vide said sale dead. The plaintiffs did not ask for possession as a consequential relief and in these circumstances simple court fee for declaration and injunction was legally payable which has been paid in this case. Thus the suit of the plaintiff has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.