JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JOGINDER Singh and Gurdial Singh sons of Mahal Singh filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the agricultural land in dispute which was once held by their father Mahal Singh as ancestral property and that the gift made by him in respect of that land in favour of Charan Kaur, who is widow from his 3rd son, who died in 1947, is void and has no effect on their possession and title The suit was contested by Charan Kaur and one of the objections raised was that the court -fee paid is not sufficient as ad valorem court -fee on the market value of the land in dispute should have been affixed. The trial court came to the conclusion that simple suit for declaration was not maintainable because merely by saying that the gift was not void, it could not be ignored unless the gift was set aside as they were the legal representatives of the donor. Therefore it was held that unless the gift was avoided, it would be binding on the plaintiffs The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that even if ad valorem court fee is payable, it will have to be paid on 10 times the land revenue was declined and it was ordered that the court fee on the market value of the land in dispute should be paid. From this order of the trial court, the plaintiffs have come to this court in this revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the trial court was partly right in its order. It lightly concluded that the gift had to be avoided by the plaintiffs and a simple suit for declaration was not enough. Therefore, while getting declaration as owners, consequential relief of avoiding or setting aside the gift had also to be sought. Therefore, ad valorem court fee under section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by Punjab had to be paid. This provision is followed by section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. With regard to agricultural land it provides that ad valorem court fee is payable on 10 times of the land revenue on the agricultural land wherever the land is assessed to land revenue and in case the land is not assessed to land revenue, then court fee is paid on the market value of the land. In the present case it is not disputed that the land in dispute is assessed to land revenue. The view of law I am taking, is supported by Iqbal Kaur v. Chanan Singh, 1978 P.L.R. 62 and Babu Ram v. Yogesh Kumar, 1979 P.L.J. 452 Accordingly, the Court below was in error in ordering that the court -fee be paid on the market value of the agricultural land.