Rasampreet Kaur Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh Singh and Another Gurbaksh Singh and Another
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5563-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-5563-2025 (O&M) CR Reserved Reserved on :- 20.08.2025 Pronounced on:-26.08.2025 Pronounced on: Rasampreet Kaur Rasampreet Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Gurbaksh Singh and Another Gurbaksh Singh and Another ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1.
Legal Reasoning
The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal , Payal in CS No. 271 of 2023, titled “Rasamp reet Kaur v. Gurbaksh No. 271 of 2023, titled “Rasampreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh , whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Singh and Another”, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC , whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Singh and Another by the defendants-respondents was allowed and the plaintiff by the defendants was was allowed and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee directed to make good the deficiency in court fee by paying ad valorem court fee ted in the impugned sale deeds. on the sale consideration recited in the impugned sale deeds. on the sale consideration reci Brief Facts 2. challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, The plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, challenging sale deeds dated 26.08.2021, The plaintiff filed a civil suit 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant 31.12.2021, and 17.05.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is ₹15,10,000, ₹16,20,000 and No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is No. 2. The consideration of the three sale deeds is nts contended that court ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defendants contended that court ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defenda ₹14,60,000 respectively, totalling ₹45,90,000. The defenda ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. fee of ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. ₹1,07,625 was payable, whereas the plaintiff had paid only ₹250. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5563-2025 (O&M) -2- - 3. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with possession of the suit land, and therefore, in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, ad valorem fee was payable. (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ad valorem fee was payable. 4. The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she The plaintiff, in reply, denied the averments and contended that she was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had was in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that she had ses of court fee and jurisdiction and correctly valued the suit at ₹2,500 for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and ses of court fee and jurisdiction and correctly valued the suit at ₹250, as the suit was one for declaration and injunction. paid court fee of ₹250, as the suit was one for declaration and injunction. paid court fee of Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff was e deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. seeking declaration that the sale deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. e deeds were illegal, void, and not binding upon her. seeking declaration that the sal Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought Although she was not an executant of the sale deeds, she had also sought injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from alienating or transferring the property by raising possession of property and changing the nature of the property by raising possession of property and changing the nature of the possession of property and changing the nature of the construction. 6. Suhrid Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in