IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :12.11.2025 PARAMJIT GILL @ PARAMJEET KAUR @ PARMJIT GILL ... PETITIONER VERSUS SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Plaintiff- Petitioner, 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 Plaintiff-Petitioner, 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 4, obtained a legal heir certificate by concealing material facts, thereby ignoring the Plaintiff-Petitioner and Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, to give undue advantage to Defendant No. 2. Bashir Masih had allegedly illegally executed transfer deeds in favour of the defendants in respect of co-parcenary property. It was further contended that the said transfer deeds were illegal, being in violation of the notification dated 21.12.2001. Accordingly, the Plaintiff-Petitioner sought recognition of his rights as a co-parcener and declaration that she is in joint possession. Plaintiff has further asserted that transfer-deeds dated 21.06.2018 bearing Wasika No. 1145 and Transfer Deed dated 10.07.2016 bearing No. 1415, and Transfer Deed dated 21.06.2018 bearing No. 1151 in favour of the defendants are illegal and void.

3. Apart from challenging the said transfer deeds and seeking their quashing, the Plaintiff-Petitioner had also sought possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that since the Plaintiff-Petitioner is seeking setting aside of the transfer deeds and claiming 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 Plaintiff-Petitioner on the ground that the suit property is ancestral property, and the suit is based on the plaintiff’s share therein. The Plaintiff-Petitioner sought a declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff-Petitioner, along with Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, are co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th share of each out of the share of Bashir Masih (deceased), whereas Defendant No. 1 is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share, and Proforma Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th share of deceased Darshana @ Darsho and Naito, respectively. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff-Petitioner was not a party to the transfer deeds, and no consideration has passed between the parties in respect of the said transfer deeds. 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 argued 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 Plaintiff-Petitioner. Consequently, the Court allowed the application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

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

Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010)