Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1312 (PNJ)

Jugal Kishore v. Rameshwar Dass

2024-11-08

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.:- One of the defendants of Civil Suit bearing CIS No.242 of 2016 titled ‘Rameshwar Dass Vs. Shree Gaushala and others’ pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ganaur has approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) of the trial Court, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2.1. According to plaintiff Rameshwar Dass (respondent herein), suit property was earlier owned by Sant Gurbaksh Singh by virtue of sale deed dated 16.11.1951. After the death of said Sant Gurbaksh Singh, his brother Ramsaroop possessed all the rights to the suit property being his Class-Il successor. Plaintiff is now maintaining the estate of his father Rameshwar Dass. Ramsaroop i.e. father of the plaintiff had given the suit property on license to defendant No.1-Shree Gaushala for a specific purpose i.e. for storage of fodder for the cows and other incidental purposes. Said Ramsaroop never transferred any rights to the said property in favour of said Shree Gaushala by way of sale deed or any gift deed etc. However, plaintiff later on came to know that by virtue of a registered exchange deed dated 11.07.1997, defendant No.1 through its President, had exchanged the suit property with defendant No.3, who is now in possession thereof. Plaintiff prayed for declaration that Rameshwar Dass had become absolute owner in possession of the suit property being the sole beneficiary and the successor of Ramsaroop. He further prayed to set aside the exchange deed dated 11.07.1997 besides a decree dated 07.12.2007, which was allegedly suffered by defendant No.3 (appellant herein) in favour of his mother Smt Ratni Devi. Plaintiff also prayed for recovery of user and occupation charges. 2.2. Application under Order Vil Rule 11 CPC was moved by the defendant on the ground of non-payment of ad valorem Court fee. Similar application was also moved by defendant Nos.1 & 2. These two applications were dismissed by the trial Court by way of the impugned order dated 10.07.2018. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that exchange deed dated 11.07.1997 is sought to be set aside by filing the suit in 2016 and so it is clearly barred by time. Similar application was also moved by defendant Nos.1 & 2. These two applications were dismissed by the trial Court by way of the impugned order dated 10.07.2018. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that exchange deed dated 11.07.1997 is sought to be set aside by filing the suit in 2016 and so it is clearly barred by time. Further, as plaintiff is also seeking decree for possession, so he is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. 4. Refuting the contentions, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that only the contents of the plaint are to be seen at this stage and that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that it has been clearly pleaded by the plaintiff that he resides in Delhi and that he came to know only in May, 2016 that defendant No.1 had exchanged the suit property with defendant No.3 by way of document dated 11.07.1997, which was an illegal document. Learned counsel contends further that the suit property was given on licence by the father of the plaintiff, therefore, to seek recovery of possession of the suit property, ad valorem Court fee is not required. 5. Legal position cannot be disputed to the effect that at the time of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting of the plaint, Court is required only to see the contents of the plaint and not to consider the contents of the written statement or the defence of the defendants. However, the Court can go behind the plaint to find out that plaintiff has not disguised the relief so as to avoid the payment of Court fee. 6. In the present case, plaintiff is claiming to be owner of the suit property and that his father had given the same on licence to defendant No.1- Shree Gaushala. He has assailed the exchange deed dated 11.07.1997 about which he came to know in May, 2016. Plaintiff is not the executant of the said exchange deed nor was the party to the suit, in which decree was suffered by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. As per contention, the exchange deed is alleged to be the result of conspiracy inter se the defendants and so not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff is not the executant of the said exchange deed nor was the party to the suit, in which decree was suffered by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. As per contention, the exchange deed is alleged to be the result of conspiracy inter se the defendants and so not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 7. Being not an executant to the any of the aforesaid assailed documents, plaintiff is not required to pay the ad valorem Court fee as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Others, 2010 AIR (SC) 2807. 8. The plaintiff is claiming the defendant to be licensee and that transactions executed between defendants inter se are based upon conspiracy and so illegal and void. Though, lease is an agreement that gives a tenant the right to exclusively use a property, a license on the other hand is merely a permission for a licensee to use a property without exclusive control. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in holding that, plaintiff was not required to pay ad valorem Court fee. 9. As such, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also disposed of.