TEKU ALIAS SAT PARKASH Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is against order dated 16.9.2004 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby plaintiff [now petitioner] had been directed to affix ad-valorem court-fee on the sale consideration of Rs. 1,92,000/- shown in the sale deed dated 23.2.1998, which had been challenged by the plaintiff.

(2.) PLAINTIFF [now petitioner] had filed suit for declaration challenging the power of attorney stated to be executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 on 30.4.1997 and then sale deed dated 23.2.1998 stated to have been executed by defendant No. 1, on behalf of the plaintiff, in favour of defendant No. 2 regarding land measuring 17 kanals sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 on the basis of that power of attorney. It had been pleaded that the sale deed dated 23.2.1998 was totally unlawful, illegal, incompetent and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and plaintiff continued to be owner of the land stated to be sold. In that suit, defendants had filed objections that ad- valorem court fee on the sale consideration shown in sale deed dated 23.2.1998, was required. That plea of the defendants was accepted and the impugned order was made.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties had relied on Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 PLR 127, Harish Chander and others v. Gurbachan Singh and others, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 145 : 2000(3) PLR 272, Ram Singh and others v. Labh Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 208, Krishan Devi and another v. Jaswant Singh, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 563, Sita Wanti v. Yash Pal Singh, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 564 : 2007(1) PLR 86 and Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 135 : 1998(2) PLR 417. In this case, from the plaint it would appear that plaintiff had admitted having gone to the office of Sub-Registrar but had pleaded that the power of attorney was got prepared fraudulently and got executed on the pretext of arranging his marriage deed.