JUDGMENT:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the plaintiffs' second appeal are as under:-

"1. Whether the first appellate Court has committed an error of law in holding that the appropriate Court fees as per provision of Section 7 (IV) (a) of the Court Fee Act has not been affixed?"

"2. Whether the first appellate Court was justified in holding that the partition in the joint family had not been taken particularly when the defendant No. 1 to 3 in their written statement have admitted the fact that there was the family settlement and the members of the family had already accepted the family settlement and the property was partitioned accordingly with the respective members of the family?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court].

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Moolchand Kalar had three sons namely Hagru, Ankalu and Shyam Sunder. Parmilabai, widow of Shyam Sunder and Sukbati, daughter of Shyam Sunder, both filed a civil suit for declaration of their title and also seeking declaration that sale deed dated 2.1.1995 (Ex. P/1) executed by defendants No. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant No. 3-Narad Ram is null and void as the suit property fell in the share of Shyam Sunder in partition and defendants No. 1 & 2 had no right and interest over the suit property and sale made/alienation made is void and not binding on them.

3. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement stating inter-alia that in the family partition, the suit land fell in the share of defendants No. 1 & 2 and they have rightly sold the suit land in favour of defendant No. 3, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record held that the suit land was the property of Shyam Sunder, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 1 & 2 had no right to sell the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3.

5. In appeal preferred by the defendants, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the suit property is joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 & 2 and since they have sold the property to defendant No. 3, to that extent their share will be reduced and further held that the plaintiffs were required to pay ad-valorem court fee as per Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1870").

6. Questioning legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs, in which substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court, which have been set-out in opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that since the plaintiffs were not party to sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant No. 3, therefore, they were not required to pay ad-valorem court fees relying upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Raju Tiwari and others v. Baishakhin Bai and another AIR 2017 Chhattisgarh 17. He would further submit that the First Appellate Court has committed illegality in dismissing the suit after having held that the suit property is the property of Hindu undivided family. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside.

8. None present for respondents No. 1 to 3 though served. However, State of Chhattisgarh is formal party in this appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, perused the judgment and decree impugned and records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

10. Sale deed dated 2.1.1995 (Ex. P/1) was executed by defendants No. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 in which the plaintiffs were not party. It