CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Gurjeewan Singh vs Jagar Singh and ors.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 November 1989 · Citation: (1990) CCC 240 : (1990) CivCC 240 : (1990) PLJ 234 : (1990) 1 PLR 261 : (1990) 2 RRR 291

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.V.Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 2624 of 1489
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words

J.V. Gupta, J.

1.

This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 2281989 whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem courtfee on the sale consideration of Rs, 63,000/.

2.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration challenging the alienations made by his fattier Bhagat Singh vide sale deeds dated 9121980 and 10121980 alleging them to be illegal, void and without consideration and hence ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff also claimed possession of the suit land.

3.

One of the preliminary issues framed was whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction. The trial Court found that it is the substance of the plaint which should be seen and not the mere form and in this case the plaintiff is seeking substantial relief of declaring null and void the sale deeds dated 9121980 and 10121980 which were for the consideration of Rs. 63,000/ and as such the plaintiff is required to affix ad valorem courtfee on this amount before challenging the two sale deeds in question.

4.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal and thus the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under the Hindu Law challenging the alienations made by his father on the ground of being without legal necessity and without consideration. The plaintiff being the member of the joint family has a right to have the transactions declared null and void, if they are not justified. That being so, the question of paying ad valorem courtfee on the sale price did not arise. For all intents and purposes, the suit is for declaration and the possession is by way of consequential relief. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit on merits in accordance with law,

5.

The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 18121989.