JASMAIR Vs. RAM BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in the petition before this court is with regard to the validity or otherwise of the impugned order dated 12.1.2008 vide which the learned Trial Court, while allowing a plea filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. directed the plaintiff- petitioner to pay the ad-valorem court fees in the suit.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court, in recording the view obtained, relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1981 PLJ 423 (FB).

(3.) IN order to enable the appropriate appreciation of the controversy, it may be noticed, at the very outset, that the plaintiff-petitioner has called into question the validity of the impugned sale deed dated 14.5.2004 which had been executed by his father and brother in respect of the co-parcenary property. The allegation of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the impugned sale deed is without consideration and legal necessity. It is, thus, evident that the challenge herein is by a co-parcener to the impugned act of the Karta and the averment, in the context, is that the sale was of co-parcenary/joint hindu family property which could not have been effectuated by the Karta without legal necessity and consideration.