TARA SINGH Vs. TARSEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 11th February, 1985, whereby the plaintiffs were directed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 11th June, 1981 and 19th June, 1981, effected by Gurbaksh Singh defendant No. 4 in favour of Tarsem Singh, defendant No. 1, and his grand-sons Raghbir Singh and Satnam Singh defendant Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, were sham, fictitious, illegal, void, ineffective and without legal necessity, and with a view to defeating, defrauding and debarring the rights of the plaintiffs and other co-parceners in the co-parcenary property of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs and the defendant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, one of the objections taken was that, in fact, the suit was for the cancellation of the sale deeds, and as such, ad valorem court-fee was required in the present case. Consequently, Issue No. 3 regarding valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was treated as preliminary. After the parties had led evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were to pay ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration of Rs. 92,000/-. Since the plaintiffs had paid only Rs. 39/- as court-fee they were directed to make up the deficiency.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit is not for cancellation of the sale deeds but is simply a suit for declaration so as not to affect their rights as the sale deeds are without any legal necessity. In support of his contention, he referred to Jai Krishna Das v. Babu Ram, 1967 AIR(P&H) 263and Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 AIR(P&H) 368(Full Bench decisions) whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on Jugal Kishore v. Dr. Pirbhu Dayal,1980 PunLR 717.