Mohd. Rafat vs Jamila Begum & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4499 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+
     C.R.P No.141/2014 and C.M.Nos.15287/2014 (Stay) and
     15288/2014 (Exemption)

%                                                    16th September, 2014

MOHD. RAFAT                                                    ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.Abinash K.Mishra, Advocate.

                 VERSUS
JAMILA BEGUM & ORS.                                           ...... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is the defendant no.1 in the suit. The

petitioner/defendant no.1 impugns the order of the trial court dated

11.8.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner/defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC). What was prayed for in the application under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC was that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of

court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction because the plaintiffs in the suit/plaint

(respondents nos. 1 to 5 herein) besides claiming 50% ownership in the suit

property, is also questioning the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated

20.2.2013 pursuant to which respondent nos. 1 & 2 are claiming ownership

in the suit property and that the value of the suit should be the value of the

property mentioned in the MOU at Rs.2.4 crores.

2. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @

Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112 has held that a

person who is not a party to a document need not apply for cancellation of

such a document. The Supreme Court has clarified that once a person is not

a party to a document, such a person need not apply for cancellation of the

document; the suit need not be valued for the purpose of pecuniary

jurisdiction on the value of the document; and ad valorem court fee is not

payable on the suit with respect to cancellation of the document.

3. The only aspect which is urged before this Court, and which was also

urged before the trial court, was that valuation of the MOU makes the

pecuniary valuation of the suit property, and that since the MOU/Agreement

to Sell dated 20.2.2013 values the suit property at Rs.2.4 crores, the

plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 should have valued the suit for the purpose

of pecuniary jurisdiction at the value of the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated

20.2.2013.

4. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid

Singh (supra), and admittedly since the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 are

not parties to the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013, the

plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 did not have to seek cancellation of the

MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013, and therefore

plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 need not value the suit property for the

purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at the value of the property which is

mentioned in the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013.

5. The petition is hence without any merit and the same is dismissed

with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 KA