Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2085 (PNJ)

Alka Dhawan @ Shashi v. Sunil Dhawan

2007-11-28

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral) - This revision petition has been filed by Alka Dhawan @ Shashi, her two minor daughters being widow and children of the predeceased son of Tilak Raj Dhawan, and Sumita Chopra @ Aruna, another daughter of Tilak Raj Dhawan, against the order dated 21.2.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Pehowa, whereby on an application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff-petitioners were directed to pay the valorem court-fee on the market value of the suit property on or before 25.3.2004; and the order dated 15.4.2004, whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for declaration and a consequential relief of joint possession challenging the Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) dated 29.11.2001 executed by deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of his son Sunil Dhawan, was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of non-payment of the ad valorem court-fee as was directed. 2. In the present case, according to the petitioners, the suit land measuring 234 kanals 7 marlas was the ancestral property in the hands of the aforesaid Tilak Raj Dhawan. Undisputedly, he was having two sons, namely, Ravinder Dhawan and Sunil Dhawan and two daughters, namely, Sumita Chopra @ Aruna and Anita. It is also not disputed that during the life time of Tilak Raj Dhawan, one of the sons, namely, Ravinder Dhawan expired leaving behind his widow and two minor daughters. It is further not disputed that on 29.11.2001, the said Tilak Raj Dhawan executed a Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) in favour of his living son Sunil Dhawan with regard to the suit property ignoring two daughters and the widow and two minor children of his pre-deceased son. The said Tilak Raj Dhawan died on 23.10.2002. Thereafter, the widow of the predeceased son along with her two minor daughters and one of the daughter of Tilak Raj Dhawan filed the instant suit for declaring the aforesaid Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed) being illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights on the ground that Tilak Raj Dhawan being Karta of the Hindu Joint family was not entitled to alienate the suit property, which was ancestral property in his hands, in favour of one of his sons while excluding the widow of the pre-deceased son and her two minor daughters. 3. 3. Upon notice issued to the contesting respondent (Sunil Dhawan), an application was filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the suit property was not paid by the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 4. Vide impugned order, the application was accepted and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the suit property on or before 25.3.2004. Subsequently, the suit was also dismissed on that ground. Thereafter, both the impugned orders have been challenged in the instant revision petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay the ad valorem court-fee because they were not the parties to the Dastabdarinama (relinquishment deed). While referring to a decision of this Court in Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Arya Mittar and others, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 797, counsel argued that Tilak Raj Dhawan was the Karta of the Hindu Joint family and the suit property in his hands was Joint Hindu Family property and the plaintiffs claiming themselves having a right in the said ancestral property, have filed the instant suit and on such kind of suit, the court-fee is to be paid under Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and according to that sub-clause, court-fee on the agricultural land is to be paid at the rate of Rs. 60/- per acre. However, learned counsel submitted that the trial court has wrongly held while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court- fee on the market value of the suit property. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the law laid down the aforesaid decision which is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the opinion that the trial court has wrongly rejected the plaint of the petitioners on the aforesaid ground. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the law laid down the aforesaid decision which is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the opinion that the trial court has wrongly rejected the plaint of the petitioners on the aforesaid ground. As per the aforesaid decision, wherein the alienation made by the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family property has been challenged by the other person, who has the interest in the said property, the ad valorem court-fee on the market value of the agricultural land is not required and the same is to be paid according to Section 7(v)(a) of the Act. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and it is held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (v) (a) of Section 7 of the Act. In case there is any deficiency in that regard, one month time is granted to the petitioners to make up the said deficiency. Petition allowed.