KAMAL KISHORE Vs. LOON KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs challenging the order dtd. 4/5/2022 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Barmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in case No. 41/2021, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed and the application filed by respondent-defendants under Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1961') has been partly allowed and it has been held that the petitioner-plaintiffs though pleaded in their plaint that the property in question is ancestral but not pleaded that they are in possession of the property, therefore, they are required to pay court fees as per the provisions of Sec. 35(1) of the Act of 1961 on the market value of the property. The trial court has further directed the petitioner-plaintiffs to pay proper court fees on market value of the property within two months.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in relation to a property situated at Mohalla Railway Station, Barmer claiming as ancestral. It was averred that the said property was received by Amrit Lal, Ratan Lal and Ramswaroop through their father viz. Akheraj. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition have released their share in the above mentioned property in favour of respondent No. 3 of the writ petition, however, instead of releasing 1/3rd share, they illegally released the complete property in favour of him.

(3.) It is contended that shops and a house constructed on the property was being rented out to one M/s. Bhagwati Electricals without seeking permission of the petitioners and later on except one shop, the complete structure built on the plot was demolished by the respondents without informing the petitioners. It is also averred that the respondents have attempted to change the nature of property in question and the request of the petitioners to partition the property was denied by the respondents.