MANDIP KAUR Vs. BHAG SINGH @ KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed by plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P -4) passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application (Annexure P -2) filed by defendant no.1 and directing the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of both the transfer deeds which are under challenge in the suit. Plaintiffs/petitioners are daughters of Bhag Singh @ Kehar Singh -defendant no.1 whereas defendants no.2 and 3 are sons of defendant no.1. Plaintiffs have filed suit vide plaint (Annexure P -1) for joint possession of the suit land measuring 108 kanals 6 marlas alleging the suit land to be coparcenary property of the parties. In the suit, the plaintiffs have also challenged two transfer deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 regarding the suit land.

(2.) DEFENDANT no.1 in application (Annexure P - 2) alleged that since plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid transfer deeds and have also claimed joint possession of the suit land, plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit land i.e. Rs.70,08,000/ - regarding transfer deed in favour of defendant no.2 and Rs.61,01,000/ - regarding transfer deed in favour of defendant no.3.

(3.) I have carefully considered the matter. The plaintiffs are not party to the transfer deeds, which are under challenge in the suit and, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surhid Singh @ Sardool Singh versus Randhir Singh & others reported as AIR 2010 SC 2807, plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the land mentioned in the transfer deeds. Moreover, the transfer deeds in question were not executed for any consideration. The same were executed without consideration. For this reason also, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on actual market value of the suit land, as erroneously directed by the trial Court. In this view, I am supported by judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh vs. Karamjit Kaur reported as 2012(3) Civil Court Cases 556.