MAHENDER SINGH Vs. PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the order whereby he has been called upon to pay court fee on the basis of market value of the suit land.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff still continues to be owner of land measuring 72 Kanals 03 Marlas detailed as land measuring 22 Kanals 13 Marlas comprising in Khewat no. 1120, Khatauni No. 1540, Sq. No. 154, Killa No. 17 (6-9), 24/2 (3-19), 25 (8-13), Sq. No. 153, Killa No. 21 (3-12) and land measuring 49 Kanals 10 Marlas comprising in Khewat no. 1541, Khatauni No. 2076, Sq. No. 154, Killa no. 12 (9-'2), 13/1 (1-7), 13/2 (2-13), 18/2 (1-16), 18/1 (6-4), 19 (8-0), 22 (7-11), 23/1 (1-14), 23/2 (5-17), 24/1 (3-12) and Sq. no. 182, Killa No. 2/2/1 (1-14), situated within the revenue estate of village Jiwan Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 and the so called Rapat no. 461 dated 07.07.2004 showing first clubbing of above land owned by plaintiff with lands of defendants no. 1 to 5 as well as Rapat no. 462 dated 07.07.2004 showing transfer of the said land of plaintiff in the name of defendant no. 1 alone in alleged exchange and showing transfer of land measuring 07 Kanals only in the name of plaintiff and mutations no.2840 and 2843 entered and sanctioned on the basis of above said Rapats respectively are wrong, illegal, against law and facts, result of fraud, active collusion and misrepresentation and also being against the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, are liable to be set-aside and so also is the fate of judgment and decree dated 20.09.2008 passed in civil suit no. 324-C of 2007 titled as"Mandeep Kaur v. Puran Singh" by the Court of Sh.Gopal Krishan, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa so far it relates to suit land as defendant no. 1 transferred land measuring 10 Kanals 07 Marlas out of the above said suit land comprising in Sq. No. 154, Killa No. 25 (8-13) and Sq. No. 182, Killa no. 2/2/1 (1-14) in favour of defendant no. 6 and mutation no. 3329 entered and sanctioned on the basis of above said decree are also liable to be set-aside to that extent and for further declaration to the effect that sale deed bearing no. 214 dated 26.04.2010 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Rania vide which defendants nos. 1 to 6 transferred the entire suit land along with some other land in the name of defendant No.7 showing sale of the same are also wrong, illegal, result of active collusion between defendants no. 1, 6 and 7, without consideration, are liable to be set-aside so far it relates to suit land and so also is the fate of mutation no. 3494 entered and sanctioned in the name of defendant no. 7 on the basis of above said sale deed and as a consequential relief plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit land and for further relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 7 from transferring ownership and possessory right of the suit land in favour of any other person or creating charge thereon/ on the basis of evidence of every description oral as well as documentary.

(3.) He further submits that in para 9 of the plaint it has been specifically averred that he shall be paying court fee with regard to recovery of possession as per amendment caused by the Haryana Government in Indian Court Fee Act, 1870 whereby the court fee is to be paid ten times of the revenue so payable, therefore, in support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Bench in Smt. Beena and others v. Rajinder Kumar and others, 2006 2 RCR(Civ) 449. He thus, prays that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.