ALKA DHAWAN @ SHASHI Vs. SUNIL DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Alka Dhawan @ Shashi, her two minor daughters being widow and children of the predeceased son of Tilak Raj Dhawan, and Sumita Chopra @ Aruna, another daughter of Tilak Raj Dhawan, against the order dated 21.2.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Pehowa, whereby on an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff-petitioners were directed to pay the valorem court-fee on the market value of the suit property on or before 25.3.2004; and the order dated 15.4.2004, whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for declaration and a consequential relief of joint possession challenging the Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) dated 29.11.2001 executed by deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of his son Sunil Dhawan, was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non-payment of the ad valorem court-fee as was directed.

(2.) IN the present case, according to the petitioners, the suit land measuring 234 kanals 7 marlas was the ancestral property in the hands of the aforesaid Tilak Raj Dhawan. Undisputedly, he was having two sons, namely, Ravinder Dhawan and Sunil Dhawan and two daughters, namely, Sumita Chopra @ Aruna and Anita. It is also not disputed that during the life time of Tilak Raj Dhawan, one of the sons, namely, Ravinder Dhawan expired leaving behind his widow and two minor daughters. It is further not disputed that on 29.11.2001, the said Tilak Raj Dhawan executed a Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) in favour of his living son Sunil Dhawan with regard to the suit property ignoring two daughters and the widow and two minor children of his pre-deceased son. The said Tilak Raj Dhawan died on 23.10.2002. Thereafter, the widow of the predeceased son along with her two minor daughters and one of the daughter of Tilak Raj Dhawan filed the instant suit for declaring the aforesaid Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) being illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights on the ground that Tilak Raj Dhawan being Karta of the Hindu Joint family was not entitled to alienate the suit property, which was ancestral property in his hands, in favour of one of his sons while excluding the widow of the pre-deceased son and her two minor daughters.

(3.) VIDE impugned order, the application was accepted and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the suit property on or before 25.3.2004. Subsequently, the suit was also dismissed on that ground. Thereafter, both the impugned orders have been challenged in the instant revision petition.