Full Judgment
W.P. No.1951/2012 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.1951/2012 PETITIONERS :
1. Heeramani Singh s/o Jai Pratap Singh, Occupation - Agriculture 2. Smt. Ganga Singh w/o Heeramani Singh, Occupation - Agriculture 3. Neeraj Singh s/o Heeramani Singh 4. Niranjan Singh s/o Heeramani Singh Occupation - Agriculture, All R/o Mouza Ghughuvar, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna (MP) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Uma Pratap Singh, s/o Paramjeet Singh Somvanshi Occupation Agriculture, R/o village Ghughuvar, Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna (MP) 1(a) Devendra Singh s/o Late Shri Jai Pratap Singh, R/o village Ghughuvar, Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna (M.P.) 2. State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Satna (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anand Patel, Advocate for the petitioner/defendants. Shri Jagtendra Prasad, Advocate for the respondents No.1. None for the respondent No.1(a) Shri Vivek Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.2/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P. No.1951/2012 2 ORDER
(Passed on 22nd August, 2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners/defendants are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 9.9.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.95-A/2010 by which the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purposes of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the first respondent who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and injunction for getting the sale-deed dated 10.5.2010 mentioned in the relief clause to be null and void. The suit is pending in the Trial Court. A written-statement has been filed by the defendants/petitioners. That apart, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by them praying that since in the document of registered sale deed the plaintiff was party and he sold the property in question to the defendants, he is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee upon the sale deed and eventually the suit is barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. This application of the petitioners/defendants (Annexure P-4) has been rejected by the impugned order.
3. Vehemently, Shri Anand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners submitted that the plaintiff has come forward with a case that by misrepresenting W.P. No.1951/2012 3 the plaintiff, the sale deed dated 10.5.2010 has been procured by the defendants and therefore, the sale deed is not binding upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that upon plaintiff's own showing the sale deed is voidable document and if this is the position, the plaintiff is bound to pay ad valorem Court fee in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short “the Act of 1870”.). In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court, Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 201.SC 2807.He has also placed heavy reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court Santosh Chandra and others v. Gyan Sunder Bai and others, 1970 JLJ 29.and also the single Bench decision of this Court Pratap and another v. Punia Bai and others, 1976 JLJ 703.By placing reliance upon the latest Division Bench decision of this Court Ambika Prasad and others v. Shri Ram Shiromani alias Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi and another, 2011 (II) MPWN 118 it has been put forth by learned counsel that the decision of the Supreme Court Suhrid Singh (supra) has been placed reliance upon by the Division Bench. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this petition the impugned order be set aside.
4. Per contra, Shri Jagtendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court rightly held that ad valorem Court fee is not payable. W.P. No.1951/201”
5. The State Government is proforma defendant and is a formal party in this petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.
7. On the plaintiff's own showing in the plaint, the document of the sale deed dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) has been procured by the defendants by misrepresenting the plaintiff and hence, according to me, from any angle this document cannot be said to be void ab initio although it may be voidable and since the suit has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff for getting the sale deed set aside, according to me, since the plaintiff is the party in the suit, ad valorem Court fee is required to be paid. I do not have any scintilla of doubt in my mind that the document of registered sale deed dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) as per plaintiff's own case is voidable. The question whether it is voidable or not and whether misrepresentation was made by the defendants or not is a matter of inquiry but the suit should be valued and ad valorem Court fee upon the sale consideration should be paid as per the valuation made in the sale deed. All the decisions placed reliance by learned counsel for the petitioners are squarely applicable in the factual scenario of the present case.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated W.P. No.1951/201”
9. 9.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.95-A/2010 is hereby set aside and the plaintiff is directed to correct the valuation of the suit as well as to pay ad valorem Court fee. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Needless to say that since the suit was filed three years ago, let it be decided as early as possible preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge Sach