IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10.03.2026 PARAMJIT GILL @ PARAMJEET KAUR @ PARMJIT GILL ...PETITIONER VERSUS SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for non-payment of ad valorem Court fee, was allowed. It was held that an ad valorem Court fee is payable, and the matter was adjourned for payment of the deficient Court fee.

2. It was asserted that earlier, the petitioner-plaintiff, along with her father, constituted a Hindu Joint Family, governed by Hindu Law. That all the properties possessed and purchased by Modan Masih were derived from the income and assets of the joint Hindu family, and, therefore, said property were joint family property. It was alleged that Bashir Masih, along with defendant Nos. 1 to 3, obtained a legal heir certificate by concealing material facts, thereby ignoring the petitioner-plaintiff to give undue advantage to Jagsir Masih Sandhu. Bashir Masih had allegedly illegally executed transfer deed in favour of the defendants in respect of joint Hindu family/co-parcenary property. It was further contended that the said transfer deed was illegal, being in violation of the notification dated 21.12.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner-plaintiff sought recognition of his rights as a co- parcener and declaration that she is in joint possession. Petitioner-plaitniff has further asserted that transfer-deed dated 29.03.20016 bearing No.4807 dated 30.03.2016 in favour of the respondents-defendants is illegal and void. 3. Apart from challenging the said transfer deed and seeking its quashing, the petitioner-plaintiff had also sought possession of the suit property being co-sharer. Respondent-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that since the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking setting aside of the transfer deed and claims possession, ad-valorem Court fee was payable on the value of the suit property, which is Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.

4. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the ground that the suit property is ancestral property, and the suit is based on the petitioner-plaintiff’s share therein. The petitioner-plaintiff sought a declaration to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff, along with respondents- defendants is co-owner to the extent of 1/4th share each in property, viz. Plots No.B-7/1553 to B-7/1559 measuring 20’X60’ each = 8400 sq. fts. It was further asserted that the petitioner-plaintiff was not a party to the transfer deed, and no consideration has been passed between the parties in respect of the said transfer deed. Consequently, it was contended that a non- executants of a transfer deed is not required to pay ad-valorem Court fees based on the market value of the property mentioned in the transfer deed.

The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was therefore stated to be a misuse of the process of the Court, and its dismissal was accordingly sought. 5. The learned Court of first instance, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 112, held that ad-valorem Court fee was payable by the petitioner-plaintiff. Consequently, the Court allowed the application filed by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v.

Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010) AIR SC 2807 has held as under: “5. Court fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab ('Act' for short). Section 6 requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in the First and Second