NARINDER KUMAR Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, vide which application, Annexure P4, filed by contesting Respondents No. 1 and 2 (Defendants No. 3 and 4) under Order VII Rule 1 Sub-rule (1) read with Section 151 of the Code and under Section 7(iv)(c) of the court Fee Act, 1870 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was accepted and Petitioner-Plaintiff was directed to make the deficiency in court fee within one month, i.e., upto 19.2.2010.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration to the effect that Gift deed dated 16.2.2006 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh at Serial No. 4905 Book No. 1, Volume No. 152, page No. 143, in respect of land 'Gair Mumkin Malkan' for 1/8th share out of total land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas comprising in Khewat No. 177, Khatauni No. 229/30, Khasra No. 156/2(0-7), Khasra No. 156/4(0-10) situated in Village Burail, U.T., Chandigarh, Hadbast No. 222 as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83 alongwith the buildings erected thereupon, upto the first floor earlier No. 1159/2 presently known as Building No. 2028, Village Burail, U.T. Chandigarh, is illegal, null and void and nonest as Defendant No. 1 has no right to execute any gift deed in respect of the share of the Plaintiff in the above noted property, which is absolutely owned and possessed by the Plaintiff since the year 1980, after an oral partition effected between the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 5, suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 1.6.2009 of the abovesaid property, executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4, on the basis of the said gift deed dated 16.2.2006 is also null and void, illegal, nonest as Defendant No. 2 has no right to execute any sale deed on the basis of gift deed, which Defendant No. 2 got executed and registered in her name by committing fraud upon Defendant No. 1 in connivance with Defendants No. 7 and 3, who is suffering from paralysis and is bed-ridden since the year 2003, with further relief of permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 3 and 4 from alienating, selling, gifting, leasing, mortgaging or creating any third party charge on the said property and suit for mandatory injunction directing Respondent No. 6 to change the title in respect of the property in dispute in the name of the Plaintiff from the name of Defendants No. 3 and 4 and suit for permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 4 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in respect of his share in the property in question.