VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak allowing an application moved by the defendant-respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code).
(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit seeking a decree for possession by way of partition and permanent injunction on the allegations that Manohar Lal son of Hazari was the absolute owner of the property in question which was earlier part of Rect. No. 36 Killa No. 17/1. He died on 1.7.1998 and his estate was inherited and succeeded by his sons and daughters. The petitioner claims that he inherited the said property to the extent of 1/28th share. Thus, all the co-sharers are in joint possession. A suit was also filed claiming that Chand Singh defendant No. 1 illegally suffered a judgment and decree dated 21.8.1982 in a suit titled Chand Singh v. Manohar Lal on which basis he further transferred the suit property to defendant No. 4 vide registered sale deed No. 3245 dated 28.8.2003. It was further transferred to defendants No. 5 to 7 vide sale deed Nos. 2471 and 2472 both dated 3.6.2005. The plaintiff's have challenged the judgment and decree and alleged sale deeds dated 23.3.2003 and 3.6.2005, as illegal, null and void on the plea that no family settlement took place in the year 1982. It was also pleaded that the decree dated 21.8.1982 is void, illegal and non-est for want of registration. It was claimed that Chand Singh had no pre-existing right in the suit property, nor the summons were issued to Manohar Lal in respect of the suit. The defendant-respondents moved an application for rejection of the plaint for want of proper court fee. It was pleaded that the consideration of sale deed was Rs. 80,00/- and therefore they were liable to pay ad valorem court fee.
(3.) IT was the contention of the defendant-respondents that by way of present plaint there is challenge to the sale deeds dated 28.8.2003 and 3.6.2005 and therefore the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee. The petitioner, on the other hand claims that no ad valorem court fee was required as the basic relief claimed by the petitioner is for a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed and setting aside of decree is a consequential relief arising therefrom.;