RAMDEV SINGH Vs. JEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein and plaintiff in the suit, pending adjudication before the lower Court by way of this revision petition challenges order dated 8.10.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nabha whereby he has been called upon to pay ad -valorem Court fee on the monetary consideration of the sale deed which has been challenged in the suit by him. It is claimed by the revisionist/petitioner -plaintiff that lower Court failed to take note of the fact that the property is joint Hindu family coparcenary property, wherein the petitioner -plaintiff has 1/4th share by birth and respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2 in the suit) could not have sold more than his 1/4th share and that too for legal necessity. It is claimed that the Court below has wrongly construed the pleadings of the petitioner -plaintiff, where no relief of actual possession has been sought whereas the Court has passed the impugned order on the premise that decree for possession has been sought.

(2.) CLAIM of the respondents, on the other hand, is that since sale deed dated 25.10.2011 executed and registered by respondent -defendant No. 1 in favour of respondent -defendant No. 2 is under challenge, the petitioner -plaintiff is liable to pay ad -valorem Court fee. It is, thus urged that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.) IT is not disputed that sale is of joint Hindu family coparcenary property wherein share of the vendor/respondent -defendant was to the extent of 1/4th share and petitioner -plaintiff was also holding 1/4th share therein. Petitioner -plaintiff is not executant of the impugned sale deed. It is claimed that the alienation is without consideration as also without competence of the vendor as there was no legal necessity.