The payment of ad valorem court fee is a mixed question of fact and law, and should be determined after evaluating evidence rather than at the threshold of the case.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was disposed of, while requiring the petitioner-plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee, for the consideration stated in the deeds under challenge.

2. In pursuance of the notice issued, the contesting respondents made appearance through counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

4. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, initially petitioner-plaintiff Nathi Ram s/o Kesar Ram had filed a suit against defendants, who are his sons thereby, seeking declaration to the effect that blood relation transfer deeds dated 21.08.2018, 16.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 as well as mutation numbers 556, 560 and 561, sanctioned on the basis thereof and further also that the alienation of land by Mohan Lal-defendant-respondent No.1, vide sale deeds No.1591 and 1543 dated 29.01.2019 and mutation sanctioned, on the basis thereof, in favour of sons and daughter-in-law of Mohan Lal, are illegal, void, ineffective being act of misrepresentation/fraud and are not binding upon the legal rights of petitioner-plaintiff Nathi Ram and defendant-Mahinder Kumar.

5. He also made an alternative prayer that his sons along with their family members, are co-owners in joint possession with 1/4th share each unit/family headed by his sons, in respect of land measuring 60 Kanal 19 Marla, with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

6. Therein, it was also asserted that initially, the petitioner-plaintiff was owner in possession of land measuring 60 Kanal 19 Marla. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner-plaintiff Nathi Ram, namely, Seema w/o Mahinder Kumar (defendant-respondent No.11) expired in the month of May 2018 and brother of Seema had got registered FIR under Section 306 IPC against respondent No.1-Mohan Lal and his family members. Mahinder Kumar supported the said FIR. Later on, challan was presented against Mohan Lal and his family members. However, Nathi Ram wanted his family to remain together, but with the registration of the case against Mohan Lal, with the purpose to keep the family united, being head of family, had made an arrangement that both his family and property could be protected in its best.

7. It was settled that the land owned by Nathi Ram shall be divided equally in four shares, for each of his sons. Further, it was decided that Sohan Lal and Inder Lal-defendant-respondent No. 8, shall get their 1/4th share of land and Mohan Lal-defendant-respondent No.1, shall get land of his share as well as share of Mahinder Kumar-defendant-respondent No.11. Also, it was decided that when Mahinder Kumar realises his mistake and come forward in support of Mohan Lal and his family members, in the criminal case, then the land of his share i.e. 1/4th share, which was given to Mohan Lal, as trustee, shall be transferred in the name of Mahinder Kumar. On this premise, Nathi Ram had transferred the property, by way of blood relation transfer deed dated 21.08.2018, 16.10.2018 and 02.11.2018, in favour of Sohan Lal, Inder Lal, Mohan Lal and their family members.

8. However, Mahinder Kumar, thereafter realised his mistake and Mohan Lal and his family members were acquitted in the criminal case. As per the oral settlement, petitioner-plaintiff Nathi Ram, Mahinder Kumar and other family members requested Mohan Lal to transfer the land of share of Mahinder Kumar, but however, Mohan Lal, disclosed that he had already transferred the part of the property, in favour of his wife, son and daughter-in-law, vide sale deeds No.1591 and 1543 dated 29.01.2019 and refused to transfer the share of Mahinder Kumar, in his favour. Under such circumstances, the suit in hand, was filed.

9. However, respondent-defendant No.1-Mohan Lal 1(A) to (D) had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In the said application, it was asserted that petitioner-plaintiff had challenged