HARBANS KAUR Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is the son of the petitioner. In fact, the transfer deed in question was a result of fraud. Petitioner had merely filed suit for declaration that the transfer deed dated 27.7.2011 was null and void and was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Petitioner was in possession of the suit property and had not claimed the relief of possession while filing the suit. The transfer deed was without consideration. Hence, the petitioner was not liable to affix ad valorem Court fee. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Surjit Singh v. Karamjit Kaur, 2012 3 RCR(Civ) 364, wherein it was held as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner was liable to affix ad valorem Court fee as the petitioner was the executant of the transfer deed and had challenged the same. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Smt. Shanti Devi v. Smt. Suchitra @ Santosh and another, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 657, wherein it was held as under :-