BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner-plaintiff has laid challenge to order dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) of the trial Court directing him to pay ad valorem court fee on the relief claimed in his suit, while accepting the application of respondent-defendant No. 4 to 8 under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.

(2.) Put pithily, petitioner-plaintiff claiming himself to be owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property on the basis of inheritance from his mother Braham Kaur alias Manjit Kaur, filed a suit for separate possession and permanent injunction and in the alternative for joint possession along with declaration that sale deed dated 25.10.2012 executed by his co-sharers in favour of respondent-defendant No.9, namely Paramjit Singh, third party, is illegal, void, without consideration and having no binding effect upon his legal rights, therefore, respondent-defendants be restrained from making any addition or alteration in the suit property or selling the same or any portion thereof till the partition by metes and bounds.

(3.) Upon notice, respondent-defendant Nos. 4 to 8 appeared and filed application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that since the petitioner-plaintiff has prayed for setting aside sale deed dated 25.10.2012 and also claimed separate possession of the property, therefore, he was required to pay ad valorem court fee, which he has not paid.