SATYA PARKASH Vs. NAFE SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 9/9/2015 (Annexure P1), whereby in a suit filed for declaration with consequential relief of possession filed by the petitioner- plaintiff, the trial Court, while allowing the application of the respondents- defendants, called upon plaintiff, to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the plaint and leaving the issue with regard to the fraud and impersonation open, to be considered at the appropriate stage.

(2.) Mr. Kunal Dawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff, vide Annexure P-2, filed the civil suit asserting his claim along with proforma defendant Nos.5 to 10, to be owner in possession of land measuring 43 kanals, having 24/63 i.e. 16 kanals 7 marlas, on the premise that the same was previously owned and possessed by the father of plaintiff-Khem Chand, who died on 5/6/1976 intestate, therefore, the plaintiff and proforma defendants became the owners. The plaintiff recently acquired the knowledge that Nafe Singh/defendant No.1 claimed himself to be owner of the land, on the basis of the sale deed dtd. 11/6/1976 and had further sold the land to defendant Nos.2 to 4, vide sale deeds dated 17th, 21th and 22/1/1997, i.e. 20 kanals 8 marlas and shown himself to be owner of 16 kanals 7 marlas. The sale deeds were illegal, null and void as Khem Chand expired on 5/6/1976. There was no alienation by Khem Chand, during his life-time. Defendant No.1, had been shown to be owner in possession of land measuring 16 kanals 7 marlas, on the basis of the sale deed, which was an act of impersonation. The suit did not contain any prayer for cancellation of the sale deed, except declaration for the sale deeds to be illegal and nonest in the eyes of law.

(3.) The application of the defendants for rejection of the plaint has erroneously been allowed calling upon the plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee on the plaint.