- (1.) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 12.11.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kharar, directing the petitioners to affix Court fee on the sale consideration.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the property in dispute is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and the petitioners have filed a suit for a declaration that the suit land is coparcenary property the learned trial Court erred in directing the petitioners to affix ad valorem court fee. The question as to affixation of court fee is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgement of this Court Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, 1982 84 PunLR 127.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents, however, states that as the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the sale deeds be set aside, the fact that they seek a declaration as to the ancestral nature of the property or that the petitioners were not a party to the sale deeds, are irrelevant and, therefore, the petitioners should be directed to affix ad-valorem court fee on the value of the sale consideration.;