The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act in relation to the declaration of rights in co-parcenary Hindu joint family property.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1981 of 2007, 2627 and 4515 of 2008 titled Chatter Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors., Chatter Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors. and Anaro Devi v. Jitender Singh & Ors., as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

2. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CR No. 1981 of 2007. The petitioners claim that they constitute a Hindu coparcenary family with respondents No. 1 to 4. It is also claimed that the petitioners and respondents No. 1 to 4 acquired a right in the property in dispute by birth. Tota Ram son of Ganga Sahai was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 38 kanals 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabgarh District Faridabad which also formed part of the joint Hindu family property as the said property was said to have been inherited by Tota Ram from Ganga Sahai, the common ancestor.

3. The father of the petitioners Ranjit Singh died in the year 1997, whereas Tota Ram died on 23.8.2002. He was survived by Anaro Devi respondent No. 4 who is daughter of Tota Ram. The petitioner/plaintiffs claimed that the share of the plaintiffs and that of defendants No. 1 to 4 was : - Plaintiffs 2/3rd share; Defendants No. 1 to 3, 1/6th share and Defendant No. 4, 1/6th share.

4. The petitioners further claim that after the death of Ranjit Singh, respondent No. 3 clandestinely obtained lease deed on 15.12.1999 from Tota Ram and respondents No. 1 and 2 obtained a collusive decree in their favour on 1.8.2000 and Will dated 21.3.1995.

5. Petitioner/plaintiffs filed a suit to claim that the collusive decree, Pattanama and the Will were bogus, void, sham and illegal transactions which passed no right to respondents No. 1 to 3. It was further claimed that respondents No. 1 and 2 further transferred the suit land on the basis of sale deed in favour of respondent No. 5. The said sale deed was also said to be void and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the sale, lease hold rights transferred by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 5 to be void and illegal and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, sought a relief of declaration that they were owners to the extent of 2/3rd share and respondents No. 1 to 3 along with respondent No. 4 were owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property held by Tota Ram during his life time as Hindu co - parcenary property and that respondent No. 5 has no right, title or interest on the said share of Hindu co - parcenary property on the basis of alleged sale deed by respondents No. 1 to 3. Consequently, relief of injunction/joint possession was also claimed.

6. The petitioners further claimed that as they were not parties to the alleged transactions of sale and the sale was without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs was void ipso facto and therefore, was liable to be ignored and thus, it was claimed that the main relief sought is of declaration and challenge to the sale/lease transaction is consequential. Consequently, the suit was valued at Rs. 200/ - and a court fee of Rs. 25/ - was paid. It was also claimed that the dispute being with regard to the agricultural land, the value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 50/ - per acre and the court fee was paid as per law laid by this court in the case of Smt. Beena and others v. Rajinder Kumar, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 449 : 2006(2) PLR 6.

7. On notice having been issued the defendant/respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Coder) for rejection of the plaint for want of proper court fee. It was claimed by the respondent/defendants that the plaintiff/petitioners have challenged the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 5 for a consideration of Rs. 44,87,512/ - and another sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in favo