Court fee for joint possession claims must be determined under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, considering the dominant relief sought.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), filed by the petitioners-defendants No.2 to 4, for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. A suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction was filed by respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against the petitioners-defendants No.2 to 4 and proforma respondent No.4-defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants'). The plaintiffs are the daughters of Paramvir Singh and sisters of proforma respondent No.4-Sukhjinder Singh. The basic case set up was that they were a part of a joint Hindu family of which Paramvir Singh was the karta and land measuring 58 bighas 04 biswas (fully described in the plaint) and further land to the extent of 1/4th share out of land measuring 01 bigha 3 biswa (fully described in the plaint) situated at Village Bullapur, Tehsil & District Malerkotla was ancestral property. A declaration to this effect was sought by the plaintiffs alongwith a declaration that transfer deeds executed by their brother Sukhjinder Singh in favour of Daljeet Singh (defendant No.4) and sale deed executed by him in favour of Gurjinder Kaur (defendant No.3) were illegal, null and void. Further, a declaration was also sought that agreement to sell dated 18.09.2021 executed by Sukhjinder Singh and the mother of plaintiffs namely Sukhpal Kaur in favour of Dharinder Singh (defendant No.2) was also liable to be set aside. The mutations on the basis of the transfer deeds and sale deeds were also challenged. Relief of joint possession was also prayed for alongwith the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was filed by the defendants. Two fold grounds were raised namely that ad valorem court fee was payable since sale deeds had been challenged and further that since the relief of possession had also been sought, the Court fee on the market value of the property was required to be paid. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. By way of the impugned order, the application for rejection of plaint was dismissed. As regards the sale deeds, it was held that since the plaintiffs were not the executants of the same, ad valorem Court fee was not required to be paid. As regards the relief of joint possession, it was held that since the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of their share, no Court fee at the market rate was payable. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that as regards the sale deeds, the finding that ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the land was not payable since the plaintiffs were not the executants is not being challenged and the only challenge to the impugned order is that since the plaintiffs had prayed for joint possession of the same, Court fee was payable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in Annpreet Kaur Khedra versus Akhtiar Singh and another 2018 (2) Law Herald 1042 (Law Finder Doc ID # 10