Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sant Ram Patel vs Jainul Aabdeen on 25 March, 2022
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4276 of 2018
Between:-
SANT RAM PATEL S/O PREETAM LAL PATEL ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SHRI ASHIRWAD PATEL AGE 33 KHAJRI
THE. PANAGAR, DIST. JABALPUR THROUGH
KHAJRI, TEH. KHAJRI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAKESH SAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. JAINUL AABDEEN S/O HEDAR ALI , AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, 104, NEW ANAND NAGAR, SHASTRI
WARD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. M.P.STATE, THR. COLLECTOR DISTT-JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL UPADHYAY, PL FOR THE STATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition calling in question order dated
29-08-2018 contained in Annexure-P/1 passed in Civil Suit No. RCSA/5930/2018
by Seventh Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur, District- Jabalpur (MP) whereby the
petitioner / plaintiff has been directed to pay ad valorem court fees of
Rs.5,22,132/- @ 12% on suit valuation of Rs.43,51,101/-.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short is that the
petitioner / plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent
injunction against respondent no.1 / defendant no.1 in regard to suit property
bearing Khasra No.64/2 Area 0.510 hectare. The petitioner / plaintiff sold out the
said property to respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 for a consideration of
Rs.43,51,101/-. The sale-deed executed on 2-2-2018 in favour of respondent no. 1
/ defendant is void and not binding on plaintiff. The sale deed is executed by
playing fraud, for the reasons, defendant no. 1 issued various cheques towards
payment of sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff / petitioner. The plaintiff
deposited the said cheques in its bank for payment but three cheques worth of
Rs.18,00,000/- were dishonored due to insufficient balance in the account of
defendant no.1. The suit property is valued at the rate of Rs.43,51,101/- and
Court fees of Rs.1000/- for possession; Rs.1000/- for declaration and Rs.120/- for
permanent injunction were affixed and a fixed court fee under Article 17 (III),
Schedule-II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 will be payable.
3. Relying upon the principles laid down in the cases of Suhrid Singh @
Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others 2010 AIR 3308; Ambika Prasad
v. Shri Ram Shiromani 2011 (3) MPLJ 184; Shyamacharan Paul and
another v. Roopali Promoters and construction and others 2009 (3) MPLJ
691; A. K. Gosh v. Dhruv Kumar Haryani and another 2011 (4) MPLJ 493
and Smt. Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum and others AIR 2010 MP 36; learned
court below vide its order dated 29-08-2018 held that the suit has been filed for
declaration, permanent injunction and possession, therefore, Section 7 (iv) (c) of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in the present case and the petitioner is
required to pay ad valorem court fees i.e. Rs.5,22,132/- @ 12% on valuation of
the suit i.e. Rs.43,51,101/-.
4. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that order suffers from
perversity and same is contrary to pleadings. Since beginning the petitioner has
clearly stated in the plaint that the sale deed dated 2.2.2018 is executed by playing
fraud, therefore, fixed court fees on declaration is payable. Maximum Court fees to
be paid is Rs.1,50,000/- on civil Suit after amendment in the Court Fees (Madhya
Pradesh Amendment Act No.6 of 2008) but the court below has not taken into
consideration this aspect and has wrongly held that Court fees to be paid is
Rs.5,22,132/- i.e. @12% on the amount of Rs.43,51,101/-. In support of his
contention, he cited judgments of this court passed in Sunil Radhelia and others
vs. Awadh Narayan and others, ILR (2010) MP 2454 and Manzoor Ahmed
and Jaggi Bai and others, LIR (2009) MP 3111 and prayer is made to quash
impugned order dated 29-08-2018 (Annexure-P/1) with a further direction to the
court below to get the Court Fees of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.5,22,132/-.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The question required to be addressed in this petition is that whether the
plaintiff (petitioner herein) is liable to pay ad valorem Court fee i.e. Rs.5,22,132/-
which is more than the upper limit (one lac and fifty thousand rupees) fixed by the
Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act No.6 of 2008) on the suit valuation
of Rs.43,51,101/-.
7. To proceed further it would be appropriate if relevant provisions of Court
Fees Act and Suits Valuation Act are referred. For ready reference section 7 (iv)
(c) Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 are
referred, 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 :-
(iv) In suits....ÂÂ"
(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief
:- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where
consequential relief is prayed.
In all such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at
which he values the relief sought.
8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be in
the same in certain suits:-
Where in suits other than those referred to in the
Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 7, paragraphs v, vi and
ix, and paragraph x, clause (d), Court-fees are
payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870,
the value as determinable for the computation of
Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction
shall be the same.ÂÂ
8. In the case at hand since the petitioner besides seeking reliefs of declaration,
also seeks a consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction against
respondent no. 1 from alienation of the property in question and also the relief of
declaring the same deed as null and void because it was executed by playing
fraud. The same amounts to consequential relief. The aforesaid provisions are
fully applicable in the case of the petitioner / plaintiff. This court has no hesitation
to hold that the trial court has rightly held that the case of the petitioner is
undoubtedly covered under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
9. However, in order to rationalize the Court fees leviable on the plaint, written
statement, pleading a set-off or counter-claim, or memorandum of appeal
presented to any Civil or revenue Court, it was further decided to amend Article 1-
A of Schedule 1 to the Court Fees Act, 1870 in its application to the State of M.P.
And Section 3 of the Amendment Act provided for such an amendment by the
Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act No.6 of 2008). By this amendment
the legislation sought to remove the mischief caused to the litigating public because
of ad valorem Court Fees without any upper limit therefor. And although by the
amendment, the Court fees amount was enhanced precipitously. An upper limit
was provided in payment of Court fees and instead of ad valorem Court fees a just
and proper approach was needed and whereas by the Amendment Act of 2008 the
following amendment was made in Section 3.
3. Amendment of Schedule I In Schedule I to 4 the
principal Act, for Article 1-A, the following article shall
be substituted, namely :-
1 - A . Plaint, written When the amount or value Twelve percent subject to
statement pleading a set- of the subject matter in a minimum of one
off or counter claim, or dispute does not exceed hundred rupees
memorandum of appeal for lacs.
(not otherwise provided
for in this Act) presented
to any Civil or Revenue
court except those
mentioned in S.3
W h e n such amount or S i x t y thousand rupees
value exceeds five lacs plus seven percent on the
rupees but does not amount or value in excess
exceed ten lacs rupees. of five lacs rupees.
W h e n such amount or N i n e t y five thousand
value exceeds ten lacs rupees plus three percent
rupees. on the amount or value in
excess of ten lacs rupees
subject to a maximum of
one lac and fifty thousand
rupees.
Provided that minimum fee
leviable on a memorandum
of appeal shall be one
hundred rupees.
Provided that minimum fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal shall be
one hundred rupees.
10. The Amendment of 2008 vide Amendment M.P. Act No. 6 of 2008 is a
beneficial legislation and also intends to remove the mischief caused to the litigating
public because of ad valorem Court Fees without any upper limit therefore.
Providing for upper limit of Court Fees instead of ad valorem Court fees is not
only a measure of rationalization of Court Fees, but a just and proper approach to
expatriate and dissipate the cause of discrimination and to uphold the rights
guaranteed to the litigating public under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India - of easy access to justice by making it cost effective and in particular
restricted Court Fees in the form of upper limit therefor.
11. In the case at hand, the petitioner / plaintiff is admittedly a party to the suit
and also an executant of the sale deed sought to be declared as null and void. The
sale deed also bears his signature and the sale consideration is clearly mentioned
therein.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgments and also taking into consideration the Amendment of
2008 vide Amendment M.P. Act No. 6 of 2008, the petitioner is required to pay ad
valorem court fees considering the valuation of the suit property, however, in any
case it should not be more than the upper limit as prescribed by the Amendment of
2008 vide Amendment M.P. Act No.6 of 2008, meaning thereby, the petitioner is
liable to put ad valorem court fees of Rs.1,50,000/- as the amount or value of the
subject matter exceeds ten lacs rupees.
13. Accordingly, this court on the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion is
inclined to allow this petition. Hence, this petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 29-08-2018 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set-aside. The petitioner is
directed to pay ad valorem court fees of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of 15 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case, the court fees is
not paid within the aforesaid time, the trial Court is free to pass appropriate orders
taking into consideration the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (c) as held to be
applicable in the case of the petitioner / plaintiff. If the aforesaid court fee is paid
within stipulated time period, then trial Court shall proceed further in the matter in
accordance with law. Interim order dated 10-09-2018 stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and its
compliance.
No order as to costs.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
JP/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
1 Case Number Misc. Petition No.4276 of 2018
2 Parties Name Sant Ram Patel v. Jainul Aabdeen and another
3 Date of Order 25-03-2022
4 Bench Constituted of Hon. Shri Justice Arun Kumar Sharma
5 Order passed by Hon. Shri Justice Arun Kumar Sharma
6 Whether approved for YES
reporting
7 Name of the counsel for Shri Rakesh Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
the parties Shri Anil Upadhyay, PL for the State.
8 Law Laid down & Plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fees
Significant paragraphs considering the valuation of the suit however, in
numbers, 7, 9 & 12 any case it should not be more than the upper
limit i. e. Rs.1,50,000/- as prescribed by the
Amendment of 2008 vide Amendment M. P. Act
No.6 of 2008.
(Arun Kumar Sharma)
Judge
JP/--
JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
2022.03.31 10:26:48 +05'30'
