Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Shadev Mandal vs Rajendra Kumar Pathak on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54316
1 MP-5772-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5772 of 2025
DR. SHADEV MANDAL
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Kumar Garg - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved of the
order dated 24.7.2025 passed by the I Additional Judge to I Civil Judge
Senior Division, Chhattarpur (Annexure A/5), by which the application
submitted by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
allowed and the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to pay the ad-valorum court
fee for consequential relief.
2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaring the sale deed executed by
petitioner/plaintiff as null and void and as not binding on the
petitioner/plaintiff, as the said sale deed has been executed by committing
fraud. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a fine
distinction between declaration and cancellation of sale deed as held by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and
o t h e r s reported in (2010) 12 Supreme Court cases 112 , therefore, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54316
2 MP-5772-2025
petition falls in the first category where the petitioner has only sought for
declaration and not the annulment of the sale deed. Therefore the petitioner
is not bound to pay ad-valorum court fees.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned court below
relying on the Judgment of the High Court has held that once the plaintiff is
executant of the sale deed, then he is required to make payment of ad-
valorum court fees. It is observed that as per Section 8 of Suit Valuation
Act, the value of Suit is assessed on value fixed as per Court Fee Act except
provided in Section 7 clause (v), (vi), (ix) and (x)(d) of the said Act. It is
found by the Court that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaring sale deed
dated 26.7.2019 and agreement dated 30.1.2018 as nullity, and also sought
consequential relief of permanent injection. As such the relief of permanent
injection on the declaration being consequent, the petitioner is required to
make payment ad-valorum Court Fees. It is also observed that the value of
the consideration which is mentioned in the sale deed is of Rs.3,15,000/-; and
on Agreement to Sale, the value has been agreed as Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus the
court has concluded that the value of the property adding both considerations
of instruments comes to Rs.18,15,000/-.
5. It is submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff that the subject matter of
the agreement as well as sale deed is the same. Thus, this Court finds that
the court below has erred in assessing value of the subject matter, as two
different considerations mentioned in two different documents cannot be
added to make one valuation of the same subject matter. Either value of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54316
3 MP-5772-2025
consideration mentioned in the sale deed is to be accepted or that of the
agreement is to be accepted. Two valuations cannot be clubbed together to
make one valuation, that too, when the subject matter of both the instruments
is the same. Thus, it is observed that the court below ought to have valued
the suit on maximum consideration i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- of the subject matter.
Accordingly the petitioner/plaintiff is required to value Suit and make
payment of the ad-valorem court fees on aforesaid value.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (Supra) has
held 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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54316
4 MP-5772-2025
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.
7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds.
The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-
parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was
not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was
computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and
the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the
effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or
that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration
mentioned in the sale deeds."
7. Thus from the above enunciation of law, it is clear that the
petitioner/plaintiff being the executant of the Sale deed is required to make
payment of ad-valorum court fees for the consideration for the consequential
relief sought on the declaration, which in fact amounts to annulling the effect
of the sale deed. Thus, on this point, this court does not find any infirmity or
illegality much less the jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by
the court below.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
nd
