PARAMJIT KAUR @ PAMI Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 03.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, allowing the application Under Section 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, preferred by Respondent-Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 7 (herein referred as 'the Defendants') and directing the Plaintiffs-Petitioners (herein referred as 'the Plaintiffs') to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the value of the sale deeds, sought to be annulled by them.

(2.) The Petitioners have challenged the sale deeds dated 22.07.2008, 18.07.2008 and 09.12.2002, which are for consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 6,41,500/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- respectively. The Respondents have filed the application under Section 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure for paying the ad-valorem court fee. The said application was accepted and the Plaintiffs were directed to pay the requisite court fee on the consideration of the sale deeds.

(3.) Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed that the payment of Court fee originates from the pleadings, as set out by the Plaintiffs and the relief claimed therein. The Plaintiffs have claimed the suit property to be Joint Hindu family coparcenary property and they claimed themselves to be the coparceners and have prayed for passing of the decree for joint possession by way of annulment/ignoring the aforesaid sale deeds. It has also been pleaded that Mohinder Singh-Defendant No. 1 had sold the joint Hindu family coparcenary property without any legal necessity and benefit of the estate. In this situation, it appears that the trial Court has ordered the payment of ad-valorem court fee without going into the allegations, as set out in the plaint and the actual legal position for the following reasons: