Alkesh Agarwal vs Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5576 MP

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
                          CR 269 of 2021
      Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

Gwalior, Dated :17/09/2021

        Heard through hybrid system of physical/virtual

hearing.

        Shri KS Tomar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri J. S.

Kaurav, learned counsel for revisionist/ defendant No.1.

        Shri DD Banal, learned Counsel for respondent/ plaintiff.

The present civil revision has been preferred by

revisionist/defendant no.1 against the order dated 16/08/2021

passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Vidisha in Regular Civil Suit No.07A of 2021, by

which the application filed by revisionist/defendant No.1 under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2) The necessary facts for disposal of present revision in

nutshell are that respondent no.1/ plaintiff filed a suit for

permanent injunction in respect of land in question allegedly

purchased by him through two registered sale deeds, dated

11/10/2018 for a consideration of Rs.22,30,400/- & Rs.23,52,

270/- total Rs.45,82,670/- and got possession of the land in

question. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is

trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of land, and

therefore, he filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an

application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC with a prayer that

defendant No.1 be restrained from interfering in the peaceful THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

possession of the land during the pendency of the suit.

(3) Defendant No.1 after notice of the suit, has neither filed

any written statement nor reply. Defendant No.1 filed an

application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC pleading that

respondent No.1/ plaintiff has not valued the suit as per the

provisions of Section 7(iv)(d) & Section 7(v)(a) of Court Fees

Act, 1870. The plaintiff ought to have valued his suit on the basis

of amount of Rs.45,42,670/- and the estimated market value of

land ought to have been put by plaintiff and ad valorem Courts

fees ought to have been paid as well as prayed that the suit of

plaintiff be dismissed in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11

of CPC.

(4) On the other hand, respondent No.1 plaintiff raised an

objection that he is the registered owner of the suit land and he is

in possession of land in question. As per provisions of Section

7(iv)(d) of Court Fees Act, he is free to value his suit on which

the relief is sought. Despite not filing written statement or reply,

to prolong the case, revisionist/defendant No.1 has filed an

application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which has been rightly

rejected by the Court below vide the impugned order.

(5) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

(6) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for revisionist/

defendant No.1 submits the Court below has committed an error THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

in rejecting the application filed by revisionist/ defendant No.1

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC ignoring the provisions of Court

Fees Act, holding that value of property and the Courts fee paid

thereon is sufficient. In support of his contentions, learned Senior

Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgment passed by

this Court in the case of Kapoori Bai vs. Bhagwan Singh [CR

No.1488 of 1997(G), decided on 19.11.1999] reported in 2000(1)

MPWN 65 in which, it has been held as under:-

''Ss.7(iv)(d) and 7(v)(a) .... suit for injunction .... suit for injunction..... value of land disclosed in plaint itself.... court-fee has to be paid on such valuation.... 20 times of land revenue is not correct valuation of suit.''

(7) On going through the case-law of Kapoori Bai (supra)

cited by learned Senior Counsel, it emerges out that in this matter,

an agreement to sell was entered into between the husband of

Kapoori Bai, Bhagwan Singh and Madho Singh for the sale of

agricultural land towards a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- against which a

sum of Rs.1,30,000/-was paid but the registered sale deed was not

executed but in the present matter, respondent No.1/ plaintiff has

purchased the suit land by registered sale deeds by giving proper

consideration. In such a situation, in the present matter, the law

laid down by this Court in the case of Kapoori Bai (supra) is not

of any help to revisionist/ defendant No.1.

(8) Per contra, Shri Bansal, learned Counsel for the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

respondent No.1, in support of his contentions, has relied upon

the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Teerathraj

Agrawal Vs. Smt. Savitribai [CR No.2278 of 1998 (J), decided

on 2.11.1998] reported in 1999 (2) MPWN 189 in which, it has

been held as under:-

'' S.7(v).... suit for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land........ 20 times of land revenue may be assessed as valuation and court-fees thereon is sufficient.''

Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has

relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of

Devendra Vs. Virendra Kumar [Writ Petition No.4401 of 2016,

decided on 06.02.2017] reported in 2018(I) MPLJ 228, in which

it has been held as under:-

''9. It is settled law that the plaintiff is free to value his suit and pay the Court fees accordingly. Plaintiff has stated that he gave the land to father of the defendants No.1 to 3 as agricultural land, therefore, he is entitled to get back it as agricultural land. The defendants alleged to have illegally sold the land and got it diverted without plaintiffs' permission, therefore, the same cannot be binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be made to suffer for the conduct of the defendants. Plaintiffs have valued the suit and paid Court fees on the basis of 20 times of the land revenue payable on the land, therefore, on the basis of the pleading in the plaint he has properly valued the suit and paid Court fees. Since they are not party to the sale deed, therefore, they are not required to value the suit on the basis of the valuation of the sale deed.

10. The Supreme Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

Others, reported in 2010 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 2= (2010) 12 SCC 112 has held that the suit for declaratory relief and consequential relief in respect of agricultural land have to be calculated in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a nonexecutant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/ conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' - two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act."

11. That under section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act when ad valorem Court fee is paid under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 the valuation made by plaintiffs for the purpose of Court fees shall govern the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction also.'' THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

(9) In the present matter, the question for determination is as to

whether the learned Court below has committed an error in

rejecting the application filed by revisionist/defendant No.1 under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC or not; and as to whether respondent

No.1/plaintiff has properly valued the suit or not; & as to whether

plaintiff/respondent has paid the proper Court fees or not?

(10) For valuation of suit, Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870

prescribes the procedure for an injunction, which reads as under:-

''7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.

--The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:--

"(i) for money.-- in suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)--according to the amount claimed; --

(ii) for maintenance and annuities--- in suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically according to the value of the subject- matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;

(iii) for movable property having a market value-- in suits for movable property other than money, where the subject matter has a market value according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint;

(iv) In suits-

(a) for movable property of no market value--- for movable property where the subject matter has no market value, as for instance, in the case of documents relating to title;

(b) [***]

(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief--- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed;

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

(d) for an injunction--- to obtain an injunction;

(e) for easement-- for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and

(f) for accounts- for accounts- according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal (with a minimum fee of one hundred rupees];

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount which he values the relief sought. ''

(11) From the aforesaid provisions of Section 7 of the Court

Fees Act, 1870, it is clear that the plaintiff shall state the amount

at which he values the relief sought, according to the amount at

which the relief is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

(12) On going through the impugned order as well as the law

laid down by this Court, it is clear that plaintiff/respondent No.1

has valued his suit as per the land revenue which is Rs.10/- per

sq.ft and he is required to pay twenty times Court fees on this

amount i.e. Rs.200/- but the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent

injunction, and therefore, valued the suit at Rs.300/- and for

permanent injunction, minimum Court fees of Rs.100/- has been

prescribed, therefore, Court fees of Rs.100/- is required to be paid.

Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(d) of Court

Fees Act, respondent/plaintiff by valuing his suit for relief of

permanent injunction at Rs.300/-, has paid Rs.100/ as Court fees.

(13) In view of above, plaintiff/respondent No.1 has properly

valued his suit and paid proper Court fees. Hence, I do not find THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 CR 269 of 2021 Alkesh Agarwal vs. Shri Sanjay Singh Parmar and Ors.

any illegality committed by the Court below while rejecting

application filed by revisionist/defendant No.1 under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC.

(14) Hence, this revision sans merit and is accordingly

dismissed.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge

MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK

MAHENDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451ee450d 883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2021.09.20 18:18:43 +05'30'