JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, who is minor has challenged the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Safidon, allowing an application moved by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has been directed to affix the ad valorem Court fees on the amount of sale deeds. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming therein that the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 are joint owner in possession as co-parcener of joint Hindu Family Property i.e. the agricultural land measuring 168 Kanal 18 marlas, to the extent of 1376/3378 share, corresponding to 68 kanal 16 marlas compromised in Khewat No. 188 Khata No. 306 to 308 situated in the revenue estate of Village Didwara Tehsil Safidon, District Jind as per Jamabandi for the years 2002-03. The plaintiff also challenged the sale deeds No. 1632 dated 11.8.2004, 2577 of 30.12.2004 and 3128 of 23.3 2005, registered with Sub Registrar, Safidon and the mutation sanctioned with regard to the abovesaid sale deeds being illegal, null and void and without legal necessity. The petitioner also claimed that the said sale deeds were outcome of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and respondent No. 4. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the respondent-defendants from alienating or interfering in the peaceful cultivating and proprietary joint possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. 3. On notice, the defendants contested the suit and also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking a direction for making good deficiency of Court fee of Rs. 26,070/-. It was claimed that as the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the sale deeds, he was required to pay ad valorem Court Fee. 4. The application moved by the defendants-respondent was allowed and it was ordered that the petitioner-plaintiff should affix ad-valorem Court Fee on the value of the sale deeds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the plea that the plaintiff-petitioner was not a party to the sale deeds and, therefore, he was not bound by the act of 3rd party and thus, provisions of Sections 7(iv)(b) & (c) of the Court Fees Act were not attracted for payment of ad-valorem Court Fee. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the plea that the plaintiff-petitioner was not a party to the sale deeds and, therefore, he was not bound by the act of 3rd party and thus, provisions of Sections 7(iv)(b) & (c) of the Court Fees Act were not attracted for payment of ad-valorem Court Fee. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar & Ors., 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 1, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under : "The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in the suit framed the petitioner has primarily claimed the relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds in the suit for declaration and, therefore, the case was not covered under Section 7(iv)(b)(c) and, therefore, he was required to pay the Court fee on the sale consideration as well as on the will dated 29.7.1990 as per the prevalent rate of suit property. This finding of the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. The Court fee has to be assessed keeping in view the suit as framed. The reading of the plaint and the relief claimed would show that the plaintiff petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of cancellation of decrees passed by the Court in which he is not a party. Once the petitioner plaintiff was not party to the sale deeds and was claiming ownership and consequential relief on the basis of declaration prayed for, therefore ad voloem Court fee was not payable as he cannot be held to be bound by the act of third party. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained." 6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended vide Haryana Court Fees Amendment Act No. 22 of 1974, the Court fee, even if, to be paid on ad valorem Court Fees was to be affixed as mentioned in the said amended Act, as held by this Court in the case of Smt. Beena and Others v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors., 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 449. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. 7. On consideration, of matter, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar & Ors., (supra) the ad-valorem Court Fee is not payable as the petitioner being co-parcener was challenging the sale deeds made without legal necessity. This revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner is ordered to be dismissed. Petition allowed.