JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on account of filing less amount of Court fee by the plaintiff. The application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 31.01.2013. This order of learned Trial Court has been questioned by the defendants in the instant petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts:-

2(i). Civil Suit was filed by the respondent in the year 2011 with the averments that:-

(a). Suit land measuring 00-76-52 hectares was owned and possessed by her father late Sh. Satdev, who was also holder of account Nos. i.e. A/c No.492934 in Post Office, Una having an amount of Rs.65,922/- and A/c No.367 in Basoli Agricultural Service Co-operative Society having an amount of Rs.7,64,471/-.

(b). Parents of the plaintiff were divorced. Though the custody of the plaintiff remained with her father, however, finding constant watch and care of the little child/plaintiff difficult and owing to his strained relations with other family members, Sh. Satdev had entrusted the wellbeing of the plaintiff with her maternal uncle.

(c). Deceased Satdev had sufficient landed property in his name and funds in his accounts. He developed mental sickness and could not apprehend the things properly. During the period of his mental illness, he was looked after by the plaintiff and her maternal uncle. Sh. Satdev passed away on 04.07.2010.

(d). After mourning the death of her father, when the plaintiff approached the office of Basoli Agricultural Service Co-operative Society for getting her name incorporated in the account of her father, she became aware of the fact that the amount lying in the account had been transferred to the account of one of the defendants on the basis of a will statedly executed by her late father. Subsequently, a dispute with respect to attestation of mutation also arose between the parties in respect of rights over the landed property of the deceased.

(e). Father of the plaintiff had never executed the alleged will during his lifetime in favour of the defendants.

The will is forged, fabricated, invalid, null and void. There was no reason for plaintiff’s father to disinherit her from his estate as she was his only daughter and in good relations with him. In any case, the land was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of plaintiff and her deceased father, it could not be alienated in any manner save and except for legal necessity.

2(ii). The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of Court Fees and Jurisdiction at Rs.130/- and accordingly affixed the Court Fees. In the relief clause, plaintiff sought a declaration that the land measuring 00-76-52 hectares (comprised in 14 different parcels/khasra numbers) is owned and possessed by her and she is also entitled to operate and receive the amount lying in two accounts of her deceased father, being his daughter and natural heir. The plaintiff also sought the relief of declaring the will dated 09.05.2010 qua the estate of deceased Satdev in favour of the defendants as fake, forged, fabricated, void ab-initio, having no adverse effect upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property as the same was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property, which could not be alienated except for legal necessity and without the consent of other Co-parcener/plaintiff.

Alongwith the above declaratory reliefs, plaintiff also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from getting the revenue entries recorded in their names on the basis of alleged will, for ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession, changing the nature and character of the suit land till its partition and for releasing the amount lying in the accounts of her father in favour of the defendants. In the alternative, decree for joint possession was also prayed for. It will be appropriate to extract the relief clause:-

“It