SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MALIK HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order disposes of three connected Revision petitions, i.e. Civil Revision Nos. 1547, 1548 and 1549 of 1974. These petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by Shri P.L. Khanduja, Sub-Judge II Class, Palwal, on November 8, 1974, whereby he decided a preliminary issue (issue No. 7), relating to valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction, against the plaintiff-petitioners and directed them to make up the deficiency in the Court-fees. The only facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these petitions are that Bhagwan Dass made certain alienations of some portions of his land in favour of different parties. Sunil Kumar and others, sons of Bhagwan Das, filed a separate suit in respect of each of those alienations against the separate set of alienees on the allegations that the plaintiff-petitioners formed a joint Hindu Family with their father Bhagwan Das and the alienated properties were parts of joint Hindu family properties and the alienated properties belonged to the joint Hindu family. In these usual suits, alleging want of legal necessity and the sales being not for the benefit of the joint Hindu family, declarations have been claimed to the effect that the alienations are illegal, void, without authority and not binding on the plaintiff-petitioners and their families. They have prayed that the sale-deeds be cancelled and consequential relief of decree for possession of the alienated properties may be granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The defendants in the suit, the alienees took up an objection regarding the valuation of the suits whereupon the following was framed as issue No. 7, which was treated as a preliminary issue :-

(2.) Mr. J.C. Batra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners, has referred me to the judgment of Gurnam Singh, J., in Ajmer Singh V. Bahal Singh and others, 1975 RajdhaniLR 415. A suit for possession of agricultural land had been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in that case, wherein he had also claimed a declaration to the effect that a declaratory decree obtained by his son in favour of his son was void and had no effect on his rights. Basing its order on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh's case , the learned Sub-Judge, who decided the issue as to the market value of the suit property, held that the suit should be valued ad valorem on the basis of the property involved therein. Gurnam Singh, J. distinguished Shamsher Singh's case on the ground that a mortgage decree having already been passed, the suit for a declaration about the mortgage being not binding on the plaintiff could not be decreed without the effect of the mortgage decree being annulled, but no such consideration arise in the case decided by the learned Judge in (Ajmer Singh's case). Sitting in Single Bench, I am bound by the judgment of Gurnam Singh, J., in Ajmer Singh's case and there appears to me no escape from the proposition that each of these suits, as in the case of Ajmer Singh's suit, are covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act and court-fees on the plaints of these suits has to be paid under Section 7(v) of the Act by operation of the Second proviso added by the Punjab Amendment.

(3.) Mr. Batra has also referred me to the judgment in Chhota Singh V. Jit Singh and others, 1975 77 PunLR 372, where cancellation of the gift-deed had also been prayed for while claiming the usual declaration and the suit was held to be one under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. I need not deal at any length with the facts in Gurdial Singh V. Balwinder Singh and others,1971 PunLR 716 It merely dealt with the Punjab amendment and held that in the cases covered by Section 7(iv)(c), the court-fees have to be paid at 10 times the land revenue assessed on the land and not at 30 times. That question does not call for decision in the present litigation.