Hakam Singh v. Gurdeep Singh And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.15.07.2016 Hakam Singh .......Petitioner Vs.

Gurdeep Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff is Class-II heir of deceased Rattan Singh whose power of attorney has been allegedly misused by respondents/defendants in effecting the sale deed. It is the aforementioned sale deed which has been challenged along with the consequential relief of separate possession and mandatory injunction. Vide application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, at the instance of the respondents-defendants, the plaintiff was called upon to pay the ad valorem court fee. Mr. S.S. Rangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner is not the signatory of the aforementioned sale deed as Rattan Singh had been murdered and he accordingly stepped into his shoes and therefore, ratio decidendi culled out from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 2010(12) SCC 112 do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, urges this

-2Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the court below. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. For the sake of brevity, the claim in the suit reads thus:- "Suit for possession of the land mentioned at letter X and Y, And Suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff and performa defendant no.13 are joint owners in equal shares of the share of Rattan Singh deceased of land mentioned at letter X and Y below and General Power of Attorney Wasika No.2173/4 dated 27.2.1997 allegedly executed by deceased Rattan Singh son of Dalip Singh in favour of Gurdeep Singh defendant No.1 and subsequent sale deeds No.1358 dated 4.3.1997, No.1354 dated 3.3.1997, No.1451 dated 26.3.1997 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3, No.1373 dated 6.3.1997, No.1383 dated 10.3.

1997 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 of land mentioned at letter X and Y, Sale deed No.1074 dated 4.9.2000 allegedly executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4, sale deed No.1088 dated 5.9.2000 alleged executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.7, sale deed No.1402 dated 14.11.2002 alleged executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.8, 9 and 10 of land mentioned at letter Y are illegal, null and void without any right competency, without consideration result of fraud and inclusion with each other and the mutations on the basis of above said sale deeds are illegal and are liable to be set aside And for declaration to the effect that plaintiff and performa defendant No.13 are joint owners of A/c No.

-3North : Road South: Ajmer Singh etc.

East: Road.

West: House of Amrik Kaur etc. Situated at village Nandpur Tehsil Bassi Pathana Distt. Fatehgarh Sahip.

And for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.2 to 10 their agents and servants from changing the nature of suit land mentioned at letter X and Y below and from further alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange etc. or in any other manner to any body else and also restraining defendant No.11 and 12 for making any payment to defendant No.1 to 3 in any manner. And for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.11 to make payment of rent/lease money of Tower in question and building of Telephone Exchange and also directing defendant No.12 to disburse the amount lying in A/C No.630 of deceased Rattan Singh to plaintiff and proforma defendant No.13 in equal share."

On perusal of the claim, it is clear that the sale deed allegedly executed on the basis of the power of attorney of Rattan Singh (since deceased) has been challenged. Had Rattan Singh been alive, he would have been the plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff being Class II heir is espousing his cause. In fact, he cannot be permitted to plead that he is not executant of the aforementioned document and therefore, exempted from payment of the ad valorem court fee as per Section 7 (iv)(c) of Court Fee Act, 1870. The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts, aforementioned, of the present case.

-4The trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fee and there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the court below which is challenged in the revision petition, much less, it cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 15, 2016 Pankaj*