Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil vs Shivkanyabai on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
1 CR-1226-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 1226 of 2024
ANIL AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVKANYABAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Phadke, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Padmnabh Saxena, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER
This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants
challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Thandla, District Jhabua in RCSA No.38/2022, whereby the Trial
Court has dismissed petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs filed a civil
suit for declaration and possession in respect of land bearing survey No.650,
area 0.49 hectare situated at Village Thandla, District Jhabua, on the ground
that the suit land originally belonged to Shantilal, who was husband of
respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shantilal passed
away on 13.03.2014 and during his lifetime, he had granted the suit land on
batai to one Rameshchandra and thereafter to one Narsingh, Manish and
subsequently to one Kamal Patidar. The petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to
11/defendants are the bhumiswami of land bearing survey No.651, which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
2 CR-1226-2024
was also granted by them to the aforesaid persons on batai. In the month of
June, 2021, the petitioners came on the suit land and informed the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 that the suit land belonged to them whereupon the plaintiffs
obtained copies of khasra of year 1988-89 and only on 14.07.2021, the
plaintiffs came to know that in pursuance of order dated 10.04.1988 passed
in Case No.10/A-6/1987-88, name of Murlidas (predecessor of defendants)
was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, the defendants mutated their
names in the revenue record and taking advantage of the aforesaid position,
sold some part of the suit land by executing registered sale deeds.
Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 had sought relief of declaration that
the sale deeds executed by the defendants are void and the mutation order
dated 10.04.1988 is forged and also sought relief of possession. On
09.05.2023, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds :-
a) The respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs had no cause of action to file
the suit as they have challenged the order of mutation passed in the year
1988 and after a lapse of 26 years, they have filed the suit, which is barred
under the provisions of the Limitation Act as well as Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act.
b) The plaintiffs have sought cancellation of registered sale deeds
dated 04.02.2022, 03.03.2022, 15.12.2021 and 09.09.2021 and therefore,
under the provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, they are required to value the
suit and pay the advalorem court fees.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of decision of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
3 CR-1226-2024
the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh &
Others [AIR 2010 SC 2807], the plaintiffs are bound to value the suit on the
basis of consideration mentioned in the sale deed and accordingly, has to pay
the requisite ad-valorem court fee and without considering this aspect, the
Trial Court has entertained the suit. The petitioners also filed written
submissions. It is further contended that the Trial Court has committed grave
illegality in placing reliance on the judgement in Ramprasad Kumbhkar & 7
others Vs. Geetabai Kumbhkar & another [2013 (2) MPWN 113]. With these
submissions, he prays for allowing the civil revision and the impugned order
be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their the reply.
It is submitted that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order. To bolster his contentions, he has placed
reliance on the judgement in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh and Others Vs.
Kuldeep Singh & Others [2013 (2) MPLJ 602], Laxmi & Others Vs. Hari
Singh & Others [2016 (4) MPLJ 308] and Chhotanben & Another Vs.
Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [2019 (1) MPLJ 491].
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. At the time of entertaining the civil suit, it is duty of the Court to
see as to whether the plaintiff has valued the suit properly and paid requisite
court fee, or not. A person who is not an executant or party in a sale deed and
sue for a declaration that the deed is null and void and does not bind him or
his share and also does not seek relief of possession, is not required to pay
ad-valorem court fees.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
4 CR-1226-2024
7. In the case of Laxmi (supra) , the Coordinate Bench of this Court
has held as under:-
3. The controversy involved in the present case is no more res-
integra, in view of the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Sushrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Sisngh &
Ors. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court while taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act
has held as under:-
5. Court-fee in the State of Punjab is governed by the Court Fees-
Act, 1870 as amended in Punjab (`Act' for short). Section 6
requires that no document of the kind specified as chargeable in
the First and Second Schedules to the Act shall be filed in any
court, unless the fee indicated therein is paid. Entry 17(iii) of
Second Schedule requires payment of a court fee of Rs.19/50 3 on
plaints in suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no
consequential relief is prayed for. But where the suit is for a
declaration and consequential relief of possession and injunction,
court fee thereon is governed by section 7(iv)(c) of the Act which
provides :
"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 - x x x x (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential
relief.- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where
consequential relief is prayed, x x x x x according to the amount at
which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of
appeal.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he
values the relief sought:
Provided that minimum court-fee in each shall be thirteen rupees:
Provided further that in suits coming under sub-clause (c), in cases
where the relief sought 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 this section."
The second proviso to section 7(iv) of 4 the Act will apply in this
case and the valuation shall not be less than the value of the
property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of the
said section. Clause (v) provides that where the relief is in regard
to agricultural lands, court fee should be reckoned with reference
to the revenue payable under clauses (a) to (d) thereof; and where
the relief is in regard to the houses, court fee shall be on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
5 CR-1226-2024
market value of the houses, under clause (e) thereof.
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 5 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 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.
8. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) ,
the case of the plaintiff is on a different footing qua the case of a litigant who
is party to a sale-deed. In the present case, since the plaintiffs are not a party
to the sale-deed and is only seeking a declaration that sale-deed be declared
null and void qua them, their case is on different footing. In that eventuality,
as per Suhrid Singh (supra), the plaintiffs are not required to pay advalorem
court fee. Apart from this, advalorem court fee is not payable when the
plaintiffs make an allegation that instrument is void and hence not binding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29001
6 CR-1226-2024
upon them.
9. Considering the aforesaid deliberations and duly taking into
consideration the averments made in the plaint, it is observed that the
petitioners failed to file acceptable material to reject the plaint at the
threshold. The contention raised by the petitioners are required to be
examined after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The case of the
defendants does not fall within the grounds enumerated in Order VII Rule 11
CPC. In the present case, the plaintiffs are not party to the said sale deed as
per the pleading made in the plaint. In such situation, the Trial Court is
directed to proceed further in accordance with law on its own merits.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is hereby
confirmed and this revision is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court
that whatever observations are made by this Court in the present order shall
be confined regarding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and
the Trial Court to finally decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with
law on its own merits on the basis of evidence led.
10. With the aforesaid, present revision stands disposed of.
11. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand also
disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
gp
