Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Khushbo Solanki vs Omprakash Meena on 13 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CIVIL REVISION No. 630 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. KHUSHBO SOLANKI W/O SHRI JITENDRA
SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 15 DAMODAR NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI V.K NAGPAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. OMPRAKASH MEENA S/O SHRI RAMSINGH
MEENA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST HOUSE NO. 47 RAM MANDIR
VILLAGE KILANI TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIRENDRA MEENA S/O SHRI RAMSINGH MEENA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST HOUSE NO. 47, RAM MANDIR,
KOLANI, TEH. MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This civil petition is preferred under Section 115 of the CPC challenging
the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District
Indore in civil suit No.37-A/23 whereby the application of petitioner/defendant
under Order 7 Rule 11(b)(c) of CPC read with Section 7 (iv)(c)(d) and Section
7 (v) of Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 3, 4 of Suit Valuation Act, 1887 has
been rejected.
2. Shorn of the unnecessary details plaintiffs/respondents filed civil suit
No.37-A/23 seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated executed on 13.01.2021
and registered on 14.01.2021, for formal possession, permanent injunction and
valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees for the relief of
cancellation of sale-deed, possession of Rs.10,62,500/-, mandatory and
permanent injunction at the interest of Rs.1,000-1,000/- and paid the court fees
to the tune of Rs. 97,340/-.
3. The petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
claiming that plaintiffs have not valued the relief of declaration and possession
separately so the plaintiffs be directed to value the relief claimed separately and
if they fail to do so the plaint be rejected.
4. Challenging the order of the trial Court this revision petition has been
preferred on the grounds that:-
(a) The learned trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner/defendant without considering the fact that the respondent/plaintiffs
have to pay court fees on consequential relief sought by them.
(b) The respondent/plaintiffs under valued the suit and valuation of suit is
not done regarding the consequential relief sought by them.
(c) The trial Court has also not considered the legal fact that, the relief of
possession is consequential relief of declaration, therefore, the application filed
by the petitioner/defendant is liable to be allowed.
5. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs has opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejection.
6. Trial Court has concluded that plaintiffs/respondents have valued suit
properly and also paid sufficient court fees and rejected the application.
7. In this case the core issue is whether plaintiffs/respondents has to
value the relief of possession also separately for the purpose of jurisdiction and
for the purpose of court fees.
8. The argument of petitioner/defendant is based on Tarun
Malkapurkar v. Jitendra Agrawal and Others AIR 2017(2) M.P.L.J 600
appreciating evidence of the trial Court. The relevant para of the judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"10. That the plaintiff has now valued the suit properly, but did not pay the
ad-valorem court fees, therefore, the defendant rightly filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, that the plaintiff is required to pay the
advalorem court fees. Vide order dated 18.12.2013, learned Civil Judge
has held that the plaintiff is claiming relief of possession, therefore, he is
liable to pay the ad-valorem court fees. This issue has already been
decided by the order dated 21.04.2011 in W.P.No.3917/2011. That the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs.
Randhir Singh and Others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807 (Supra) has
considered the scope of section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act and held that
if the relief of possession is sought, the court fees shall be computable
under Section 7(4)(c) of the Act. Para 6 of the said judgment is reproduced
as under: "6.Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has
to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant 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 is
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 non-
executant, 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. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the
amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso
thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with
consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall
not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner
provided for by clause (v) of Section 7."
9. In this matter the relief of possession is consequential to the relief of
cancellation of sale-deed. So, the provision which will apply is Section 7(iv)(c)
of the Court Fees Act,1870 and in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed the
valuation for the purpose of court fees is to be done as per the amount of
consideration mentioned in sale-deed.
10. The value of consideration in the sale-deed dated 13-14.01.2021 is
mentioned as Rs,10,62,500/- and plaintiff/respondents accordingly valued the
relief for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and accordingly paid court
fees to the tune of Rs.97,100/-. He also valued the relief and mandatory
injunction as Rs.1,000/- and permanent injunction of Rs.1,000/- and paid court
fees separately. Separate Court fee for possession is not required.
11. When the matter falls within the scope of Section 7(iv)(c) then the
valuation of the relief met by the plaintiffs/respondents is as per Tarun
Malkapurkar v. Jintendra Agrawal and Others (supra) and the findings of
the trial Court are as per law. They does not call for any interference.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is devoid of any merits and
is accordingly, dismissed at motion stage.
C.C as per Rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
akanksha
