MADHULESH KUMAR Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 24th December, 1997, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panchkula, who on the objection raised by the defendants directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on the entire sale consideration of the agreement to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs, for which the said agreement was executed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Madhulesh Kumar Shishodia filed a suit for possession of the agreement to sell dated 19th April, 1991 extended on 17th October, 1991 extended on 17th October, 1991 up to 31st March, 1992 and agreement dated 28th September, 1993 executed by defendant No. 1 through her attorney defendant No. 2, in respect of her land, situated in village Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. It was prayed by the plaintiff that directions be given to defendant No. 1 to execute the sale agreement either in person or through her attorney in respect of 595 sq. yds of area or any other area bearing Khasra No. 271/1 (2B-2B), 272 (B-2B) and one plot measuring 80' x 60' situated in Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka District Ambala on payment of nil amount and a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 26th August, 1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3, in respect of shop No. 65 to the extent of 8 biswas situated in the aforesaid land vide registered document No. 769/1 on 26th August, 1996 and the gift deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of shop No. 66 to the extent of 8 biswas registered on 26th August, 1996, are illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not bound by this gift deed. The plaintiff also prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in his favour against these defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants be further restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner. The plaintiff also prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,54,227/- received by them in excess. The plaintiff while affixing the Court fee only paid the Court fee with respect to the market value of the plot regarding which he was asked for the specific performance.

(3.) I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.