LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-70

ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL Vs. ARYA MITTAR

Decided On December 15, 2006
ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL Appellant
V/S
Arya Mittar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 1.8.2005, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby plaintiff- petitioner was directed to affix the ad-valorem Court fee in a suit for declaration with possession.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration on the allegation that the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and their father Dharam Vir, defendant No. 2, constitute a Joint Hindu Family and governed by Hindu Law. It is alleged that defendant No. 1, his brother, in collusion with defendant No. 2, his father, has sold the land mentioned in Para No. 2 of the plaint, to defendant No. 3, though the said land is a Joint Hindu Family property. It is further alleged that the said sale is illegal, null and void, ineffective, inoperative, non est and against the rights of the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment reported as Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 to contend that in a case where the challenge is to the sale by a coparcener of a Joint Hindu Family property, the proper Court fee to be affixed is under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and that Section 7(v) of the Act, as amended in Haryana by Act No. 22 of 1974, provides for the Court fees to be affixed in case of agricultural land and in respect of urban property. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, the Court fees is not to be affixed in terms of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed.