Petitioners Not Liable for Ad Valorem Court Fee for Ancestral Property Claim: Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today set aside a trial court’s order that demanded ad valorem court fees from petitioners seeking a declaration of joint ownership and possession of ancestral property.

The case, titled Bimla Devi and Another vs. Ram Singh and Others, dealt with the rejection of a plaint by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dera Bassi. The petitioners, daughters of respondent No.1, had challenged a power of attorney and subsequent sale deeds concerning their ancestral property.

Justice Karamjit Singh, presiding over the case, emphasized the distinction between executants and non-executants of deeds in property disputes. He noted, “Petitioners, being non-executants of sale deeds and power of attorney in question, cannot be asked to affix ad valorem Court fee.” This observation came as a relief to the petitioners, who argued that they were only seeking a declaration of their existing rights, not a transfer of possession.

The High Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which pertains to the rejection of a plaint. The court clarified that the application of this rule solely depends on the averments made in the plaint, and the defense by the other party is irrelevant at this stage.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhay Chauhan, lauded the court’s decision, stating it upheld the nuanced distinctions in property law, especially in cases involving ancestral properties and non-executant claimants. On the other hand, Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, representing the respondents, had argued in favor of the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the petitioners’ non-possession of the property.

Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

BIMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER VS RAM SINGH AND OTHERS