RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) BEING aggrieved against the order directing the petitioner to affix the ad valorem court fees, she has filed this revision petition.
(2.) APPLICATION under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the respondents for dismissing the plaint and for direction to the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fees on a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-, which is the sale consideration. The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of sale deed dated 28.8.1991. The case set up in the application is that the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the sale deed praying that she is not bound by the said sale deed as the same was got executed by making somebody else to appear on her behalf. In support of her contention, she has placed on record a report from the expert. The trial Court, however, by relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Ajmer Singh v. Punjab Singh (minor), 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 436 (P&H) has observed that even in such eventuality where cancellation of a sale deed is sought on the ground of fraud, the petitioner would be required to affix ad valorem court fees. The ratio of law laid down in the case of Smt. Aruna Bansal v. Smt. Janak Dulari, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 654 (P&H) and Teja Singh v. Smt. Amar Kaur and Ors., 2008(1) CCC 531 (P&H) was distinguished as question of the possession is not involved.
(3.) SINCE the petitioner has challenged the sale consideration qua her share, which is 1/3rd, she was directed to make up the deficiency of the court fees to the extent of 1/3rd.;