Alok Singh, J.

1. Present revision was filed before learned Single Judge impugning the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Nabha whereby directing the plaintiffs-petitioner herein to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration shown in the impugned sale deed therein in suit No.233/15.4.2004 seeking a declaration that the sale deed qua the share of the plaintiffs and proforma respondents is void ab initio, noneffective and consequentially relief of injunction was also sought restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from alienating any land out of the aforesaid property in any manner.

2. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2009 requested the Honble Chief Justice to refer the matter to the larger Bench in view of the following conflicting judgements:-

"1. Ravinder Kumar v. Narinder Kumar and others,(2007-2)156 The Punjab Law Reporter 577;

2. Prince Minor through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Rekha v. Suresh Kumar and others, 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 186;

3. Devasharay Singh v. Saroj Kumar @ Saroj Singh, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 523 (Patna);."

on the one hand, taking the view if sale deed under challenge was not executed by the plaintiffs but was executed by third-party, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration recited in the sale deed. AND

"1. Himanshu v. Smt. Kailash Rani (2004-3)138 P.L.R. 513;

2. Bagrawat v. Mehar Chand, 2001(2) P.L.J 204;

3. Ranjit Singh v. Balkar Singh (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 382;"

on the other hand taking the view if sale-deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs is challenged the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee.

3 Honble the Chief Justice vide order dated 8.2.2010 directed to place this petition before us.

4. Brief facts of the present case inter-alia are that the plaintiffs - petitioner herein preferred suit for declaration against their own father - defendant No.3 and against their own real brothers - defendant Nos.1 and 2 with allegation that defendant No.3 had executed the sale deed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 (real brothers of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants) without any iegal necessity alienating the share of the plain- tiffs and the proforma respondents. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.3 (father) was not competent to alienate share of the plaintiffs and the proforma respondents, hence sale-deed is void ab initio and non-effective qua the shares of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and on the basis of the impugned sale-deed defendants No. 1 and 2 neither acquired nor could acquire right or title on the property in dispute, hence, further permanent prohibitory injunction be granted against defendants No.l and 2 (vendees brothers) not to alienate the property in dispute.

5. Defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Undisputedly, defendants have not raised any plea of wrong evaluation or deficit payment of Court fee in the written statement; however, subsequently defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of a wrong evaluation and deficit payment of Court fee. The trial Court vide impugned judgement dated 2.12.2008 relying upon the judgements of this Court in Ranjit Singh and others v. Balkar Singh and another; (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 382, Om Parkash v. Indrawati and others, (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 853 and Ajmer Singh v. Punjab Singh (Minor) and another,(2007-3)147 P.L.R. 228, agreed with the contention of the defendants and directed the plaintiffs to deposit ad valorem Court fee on the sale consideration shown in the sale deed. This order of the trial Court is under challenge in the present revision.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is clear that sons of defendant No.3 and brothers of defendants No.l and 2 filed suit for declaration against their own father and real brothers saying that father i.e. defendant No.3 has alienated the