The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fee in a property dispute under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the applicability of Section 7(iv)(c) and Section 7(v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870.

V.K. Jhanji, J. - This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 4212 and 4306 of 1997 as both have arisen out of order dated August 30, 1997 passed by Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh whereby plaintiff have been directed to first correctly assess the market value of the suit property and then make up deficiency in court fee. Questions of law and facts involved in both these civil revisions are common. Facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 4212 of 1997.

2. Raja Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur was the ruler or erstwhile Faridkot State. He had three daughters and one son. Raja Harinder Singh died on 16.10.1989 whereas his only son, namely, Tikka Harmohinder Singh died on 13.10.1981 i.e. during his life time. Raja Harinder Singh allegedly executed Will dated 1.6.1982 whereby he is purported to have created a Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji Trust to be managed by the Trustees named in the said Will. Plaintiff who is daughter of Raja Harinder Singh filed the present suit challenging the Will in question on the ground that the same is a result of misrepresentation, undue influence and is fictitious, not made voluntarily and one Baljinder Pal Singh Brar, Advocate who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, exercised undue influence upon Raja who also left to Maharani Mohinder Kaur, his mother who was alive at the time of execution of the Will. It is further alleged that the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and is most unnatural. Raja who was Jat Sikh by caste was governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the merger of the State of the Union of India.

3. It is not necessary for me to go into the various grounds attacking the Will and creation of Trust because the short question for adjudication before me is with regard to the quantum of court fee leviable on the claim set up in the plaints.

4. In the suit filed by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, she has claimed the following reliefs :-

1. Issue a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the properties, the details whereof are given in Annexure I and that the plaintiff is deemed to be in joint possession of the said properties along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and such consequential relief as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

2. Issue a decree of declaration that the alleged Will of his Highness the Raja of Faridkot is invalid, void and unenforceable and that accordingly the purported Maharwal Khewaji Trust is illegal and any action taken by it was and is void ab initio;

3. In the alternative, if this Honble Court holds that the Will of Late Raja of Faridkot is valid, issue a decree of declaration that the alleged Meharwal Khewaji Trust is illegal as being in perpetuity, and or contrary to the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and or any other law in force;

4. Issue a decree of declaration that the trustees of the purported Meharwal Khewaji Trust are personally liable for all their actions executed whilst perpetuating the fraudulent/illegal trust and are liable to account for any and all amounts howsoever had and received or spent in their capacities as trustees;

5. Issue a decree of declaration to the effect that any and all transactions and or conveyance executed by the alleged Meharwal Khewaji Trust are liable to be set aside;

6. In the alternative, if this Honble Court holds that the law of primogeniture and or the Raja of Faridkots Estate Act, 1948 are applicable, issue a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 100% share in the properties, the details whereof are given in Annexure-I along with such consequential relief as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

7. Restrain the defendants from alienating, mortgaging, transferring, leasing, encumbering, exchanging, or in any manner charging the suit probities or transferring possession of such pro