ARUNA BANSAL Vs. JANAK DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioners I have gone through the impugned order and am of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiffs is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ranjit Singh v. Balkar Singh, 2000(1) Revenue Law Reporter 236, where it was held that the Court should look into the allegations in plaint and determine the nature of the substantive relief prayed for. There is no dispute with the prosecution case the plaintiffs are alleging that the sale deed dated 20.12.1990 executed between the defendants No. 1 and 2 is null and void being a false and fabricated document. The plaintiffs were never a party to that document. In these circumstances, no ad valorem court fee is required to be paid. Moreover, the point of court fee is between the plaintiffs and the Court. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.