IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:12.03.2026 Satpal …..Pe,,oner Vs.

Kavita and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner herein is one of the defendants in Civil Suit No.

CS-1173-2023, (cid:24)tled “Kavita and another vs. Koshalya and others”, which is pending adjudica(cid:24)on before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad.

2. The present pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on has been filed assailing the order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the applica(cid:24)on filed by the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejec(cid:24)on of the plaint, has been dismissed.

3. The plain(cid:24)ffs–respondents ins(cid:24)tuted the suit seeking a declara(cid:24)on of their right and (cid:24)tle in the suit property and for se;ng aside a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 Koshalya in favour of defendant No.2 (the present pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner).

4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2–pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner moved an applica(cid:24)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit property was not ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 Koshalya but rather, her absolute self-acquired property, and therefore, the plain(cid:24)ffs had no legal right to challenge the sale deed executed by her. It was further pleaded that the plain(cid:24)ffs had not affixed the proper ad valorem court fee on the amount of sale considera(cid:24)on men(cid:24)oned in the impugned sale deed and, on that ground as well, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

5. The learned trial Court rejected the said applica(cid:24)on holding that the ques(cid:24)on whether the property in dispute was ancestral/ coparcenary property or self-acquired property in the hands of defendant No.1 could only be determined aBer evidence was led by the par(cid:24)es regarding the source and nature of the property. The trial Court further held that the plain(cid:24)ffs were not executants of the impugned sale deed, and therefore, they were not required to affix ad valorem court fee on the sale considera(cid:24)on men(cid:24)oned therein. It was also observed that the plea regarding limita(cid:24)on involved mixed ques(cid:24)ons of law and fact, which could only be adjudicated aBer the par(cid:24)es had led evidence.

6. Assailing the above order, Learned counsel for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner contends that since the property was not ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 Koshalya, the plain(cid:24)ffs had no right to challenge the sale deed and the suit itself was not maintainable.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner and perused the record.

8. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is well seDled. At the stage of considering an applica(cid:24)on under the said provision, the Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plain(cid:24)ff. The defence taken by the defendant cannot be looked into at that stage.

9. The ques(cid:24)on whether the suit property was ancestral/ coparcenary property or self-acquired property of defendant No.1 is essen(cid:24)ally a maDer requiring adjudica(cid:24)on on the basis of evidence regarding the origin and source of (cid:24)tle. Such an issue cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of the pleadings of the defendant at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

10. Similarly, the trial Court has rightly observed that the plain(cid:24)ffs, not being executants of the impugned sale deed, are only seeking a declara(cid:24)on regarding its invalidity. In such circumstances, it is seDled law that the plain(cid:24)ffs are not required to pay ad valorem court fee on the considera(cid:24)on amount men(cid:24)oned in the sale deed, but are required only to pay the fixed court fee applicable to