JAGDISH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISMISSAL of application of defendant Jagdish, petitioner herein, filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that appropriate court fee has not been affixed by the plaintiff, respondent herein, forms genesis of this revision petition.

(2.) A suit for partition of the property while seeking possession of his share by the respondent -plaintiff is pending adjudication before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. It is a conceded fact that the property in dispute was purchased by Sohan Lal, father of the parties. He died on 30.9.2000 leaving behind the parties to the litigation as also Smt. Shakuntala Devi, his widow. Unfortunately, Smt. Shakuntala Devi also died on 14.2.2013. There is no other legal heir of owner Sohan Lal except the parties to the litigation. No one else has laid claim to right, title or interest in the property.

(3.) WHEN it is a conceded fact that except for the two brothers, there is no other claimant and the property in litigation is to be partitioned only between the two brothers who apparently hold equal share therein, court fee would be leviable by the respondent -plaintiff on the valuation of his share. Valuation of the property has yet not been determined.