MOHAN SINGH Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be determined in this revision petition is as to what amount of court fee the plaintiff -petitioner is liable to pay in the suit filed by him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist CLass, Fatehbad. In order to appreciate the real nature of the controversy involved, the relevant facts may be summarised.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner was allotted the suit land by the Custodian. One Lal Singh (now deceased) wanted to purchase the same and had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff -petitioner. However, as permanent rights of ownership relating to the said land had not yet been conferred on the plaintiff -petitioner, he agreed to transfer the same after the conferment of such rights. The said Lal Singh succeeded in persuading the plaintiff -petitioner to execute a Mukhitiarnama (special power of attorney) in his favour plea that he will be able to get the case regarding conferment of ownership rights decided successfully from the Custodian in favour of the plaintiff -petitioner. Thereafter, Lal Singh dishonestly and clandestinely executed a sale deed on August 5, 1968, in favour of his grand daughter, Balbir Kaur (now respondent No. 1). After coming to know of the fraud played on him in April, 1971 the plaintiff -petitioner filed the suit for possession of the suit land through cancellation of the said sale deed seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed, in question, was based on fraud and was liable to be cancelled. The suit was contested by the vendee and on the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed relating to the validity of the Mukhtiarnama, the sale deed and the locus standi of the plaintiff -petitioner to file the suit. Issue No. 5 was to the effect whether the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Though the entire evidence was adduced by both the parties, the suit was not decided finally as the trial court held that the plaintiff -petitioner was liable to pay court -fee advalorem on the price of the land which was Rs. 30,000/ - according to the sale deed under Schedule I Article I of the Court Fees Act, (hereinafter called the Act). The plaintiff -petitioner was thus, directed to make good the deficiency on or before July 20, 1977, and the case was fixed for pronouncement of the order on July 21, 1977. It is this finding relating to the court fee which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) IN Vishwa Nath's case (supra), the following question was referred for decision by the Full Bench : -