SANTOSH MALHAN Vs. NAINA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-plaintiffs Naina Devi, wife of Magh Singh and others (for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the impugned power of attorney, agreement to sell, registered sale deed, bearing No.404 dated 12.4.2010 and its subsequent mutation dated 21.4.2010 are altogether null, void, ab initio, illegal, based on misrepresentation, fraud and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent (prohibitory & mandatory) injunction restraining petitioner-defendants No.2 and 3 Smt.Santosh Malhan & Madhu Goyal and others (for short "the defendants") from interfering into their peaceful possession over the land in dispute.

(2.) Instead of contesting the suit on merits, the petitioner- defendants moved the application (Annexure P2) for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non affixation of ad valorem Court fee equivalent to the consideration amount.

(3.) The plaintiffs refuted the claim of defendants, filed the reply (Annexure P3) to the application, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal. It was claimed that the Court fee affixed by the plaintiffs was appropriate as they were not parties to the impugned registered sale deed.