Heena Mathon vs Mohinder Singh and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order is unsustainable. Plaintiff never sought relief of possession. Thus, ad valorem court fee is not payable. He has relied upon judgment reported as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, .

Plea has been opposed by counsel representing respondents. He has submitted that plaintiff has cleverly worded the suit. If prayer clause is seen, she is seeking declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land to the extent of 1/6th share. She has also challenged sale-deed dated 31.12.2007. Thus, payment of ad valorem court fee cannot be exempted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 31.12.2007 executed by her grand father in favour of her paternal uncle. She has prayed for declaration that she is owner to the extent of 1/6th share. Though plaintiff claims that she is in possession of the property, stand of the defendants is that they are in possession of the property. Thus, it appears plaintiff is seeking ownership of 1/6th share of the land as well as possession thereof. Trial court has rightly directed her to pay ad valorem court fee. I find no legal infirmity with the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment in Surhid Singh''s case (supra) is not applicable. Revision petition is hereby dismissed.