SURJIT KAUR Vs. HARKIRAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE house in dispute is situated in Mohalla Preet Nagar, Ladowali road, Jalandhar city, and belonged to Naurang Singh father of Smt. Surjit Kaur, plaintiff, and defendants No. 2 to 8 Defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 9 is the sister of late Naurang Singh. Naurang Singh executed a will bestowing the house upon defendants No. 1, 2 and 7 only. On 27-10-1976, the parties arrived at a written compromise, whereby defendant No. 1 agreed to relinquish his share in favour of the plaintiff. Again on 22-6-1980 the parties agreed to divide the property in dispute in six equal shares in the names of defendants No. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 but a few days thereafter the plaintiff learnt that defendants No. 1, 2, 7 and 9 have entered into agreement dated 24-7-1982 to sell the house to defendant No. 10. She was thus forced to file a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner of 1 /6th share in the house in dispute besides craving for permanent injunction that defendants be restrained from alienating the house in any manner whatsoever,

(2.) DEFENDANTS No. 3, 5 and 6 admitted the claim of the plaintiff but the remaining defendants resisted this suit by challenging the validity of the above referred two agreements. They also raised the preliminary objection of the suit being not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was also maintained that the property had been sold and that this suit has become infructuous.

(3.) THE trial Court vide its order dated 20. 7. 1984 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that Harkirat Singh, defendant No. 1, a beneficiary under the will, being not a party to the above referred agreements these were of no consequence. It was also held that the plaintiff being not in possession of the suit property, suit for mere declaration is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1953. Under issue No. 4, it was held that Harkirat Singh defendant No. 1, had sold the house for Rs. 1,30,00/to defendant No. 10 and that as the plaintiff being claiming l/6th share in the property, she was required to affix Court fee of Rs. 2,057 50 P. on the value of her share at Rs. 21,666/- but she only affixed a Court fee of Rs. 32. 50 P. Thus "while dismissing the suit with costs, an intimation was sent to the Collector for recovery of the remaining Court fee from the plaintiff: