Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Mansa, dated January 15, 1977.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Pir Karam Chand was the owner of the property in dispute and on his death, Sinder Singh plaintiff, Prithipal Singh defendant No. 7 (sons), Davinder Kaur, plaintiff No. 2 (daughter) and Smt. Devinder Kaur alias Bhagwan Kaur defendant No. 6, inherited the property of the deceased. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 sold whole of the property to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ - vide sale deed dated June 29, 1973. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession of half share on the ground of ownership. The plaintiffs fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee at 10 times the land revenue and for the purpose of jurisdiction at 30 times the land revenue, and paid Court -fee accordingly. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit and inter -alia pleaded that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court framed an issue to that effect and held that the value of the suit for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction should have been Rs. 30,000/ - and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the Court -fee on the amount of Rs. 30,000/ -. They have come up in revision against the order of the trial Court to this Court. The only question that arises for determination is whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction It is not disputed that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 were the owners of the property in dispute and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 sold the whole of the property to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for Rs. 30,000/ -. The plaintiffs were not a party to the sale transaction. The plaintiffs consequently could file a suit for possession without cancellation of the sale deed. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession of the suit till the sale deed was got cancelled. In my view, the said conclusion of the trial Court is erroneous. As the plaintiffs as stated above were not a party to the sale deed, therefore, it was not necessary for them to get it cancelled. In view of the said circumstances, the suit was liable to be valued for the purposes of Court fee at 10 times the land revenue under section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiffs had rightly valued it as such. The trial Court, in my view, has exercised the jurisdiction illegally, and its decision is liable to be set aside.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, I accept the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear in the trial Court on April 28, 1978. No order as to costs.;