Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishan Gopal vs Smt Rukmani Devi on 6 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16818
1 MP-5088-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5088 of 2023
KRISHAN GOPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT RUKMANI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Kumar Vyas - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Rahul Yadav- Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER
1. The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :
"(7). 7.1 That, the order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) may kindly
be set aside/quashed.
7.2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case be also be granted."
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs executed a power of attorney in
favour of respondent No.1 dated 27.10.1995 (annexure P-2) and after some time,
petitioner/plaintiffs cancelled the power of attorney dated 09.05.2003 by Registrar
Office [cancelled power of attorney (annexure P-3)]. Even that
respondents/defendants executed a sale deed in favour of Manoj Bhargava who is
son of respondent No.1 and who is earlier power of attorney holder of plaintiffs
dated 24.01.2012 (annexure P-4). Petitioners filed a civil suit for cancellation of
sale deed dated 24.01.2012. Respondents/defendants after appearing before the
trial Court filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16818
2 MP-5088-2023
plaint on 19.12.2022. After hearing counsel for the parties, trial Court passed the
impugned award dated 07.07.2023 and directed the petitioners to deposit the ad
valorem court fee according to the Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC.
3. Being aggrieved of impugned order dated 07.07.2023, petitioners filed
this petition and submitted that respondent No.1/defendant executed a sale deed
after cancellation of power of attorney, which shows her mala fide intention and
committed forgery with the petitioners and the same is against the procedure of
law. The principle of law is that anyone cannot sale any property if they have not
any right in the property. Respondent No.1 has no right to sale the property after
the cancellation of power of attorney dated 09.05.2003. So, sale deed does not
create any right to the defendant No.2. It is settled principle of law that ad valorem
court fee deposited on sale deed is voidable and plaintiffs are the party of sale
deed, then he should pay the ad valorem court fee, but in the present case, sale
deed is already void and defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of
defendant no.2 after cancellation of her power of attorney holder on 09.05.2003.
Hence, impugned order passed is against the law and is deserves to set aside.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that plaintiffs are liable to
pay ad valorem court fee as sale deed was executed by her power of attorney
holder, therefore, they have stepped into the shoes of the executant of the sale
deed, therefore, they are liable to pay the ad valorem court fee. In support of their
submission, counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment passed in the
case of Vishnuprasad Sharma vs. Rajendra Chouhan and Ors. i n WP
No.1614/2016 vide order dated 04.01.2018 by this Court at Indore Bench.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is clear that plaintiff alleging
fraud by defendant No.1 in respect of execution of sale deed. Plaintiff executed a
power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 on 27.10.1995, but subsequently
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16818
3 MP-5088-2023
cancelled the power of attorney by way of registered deed on 09.05.2003. After
cancellation of registered deed, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed on
24.01.2012 in favour of defendant No.2 who is the son of defendant No.1.
6. It is clear that when plaintiffs make allegation that the instrument is void
and hence not binding on him and seeking declaration of null and void of sale
deed, so he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee.
7. In the case of Sunil v/s Awadh Narayan & Ors 2010 (4) MPLJ 431 it was
held that if a registered document is cancelled by registered cancellation deed,
then cancellation operates as constructive public notice. So, when the power of
attorney which was executed in favour defendant No.1 was cancelled by
registered deed on 09.05.2003, thereafter, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in
favour of her son (defendant No.2) and plaintiffs alleged that the said sale deed
was executed by way of forged means and only want declaration as null and void.
So, plaintiffs are not required to pay ad valorem court fee.
8. Hence, from the above discussions, it is clear that plaintiffs have no need
to deposit ad valorem court fee of disputed sale deed. Therefore, impugned order
passed by the trial Court is bad in law and is hereby set aside.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
