AO/335/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2433 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  AO No.335 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Dr. Udyog Shukla and Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocates for the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that a suit for a decree of declaration to declare the sale deed null and void was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in which the Court fees was paid by the appellants/plaintiffs as 1/5th of the revenue paid per annum, however, the trial court while deciding the preliminary objection framed issue thereon directing the appellants/plaintiffs to pay the court fees on the market value of the suit property.

3. Learned counsel would, however, submit that the trial court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellants/plaintiffs were not the executants of the sale deed being prayed for to be declared null and void; secondly, the suit could have been valued differently for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees and there is no illegality for valuing the suit for these two purposes.

3. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re "Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs. Anil David and Other", (2020) AIR Supreme Court 1372 and drew attention of the Court to para 17, which is quoted hereunder:-

"17. A plain reading of the impugned judgment reveals that what weighed heavily with the High Court was the fact that the plaintiff valued the suits differently for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and secondly that:

"no other market value has been proved by the petitioners/plaintiff that the settled revenue of the land is Rs.3,000/- and in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the trial court has rightly considered the market value of the property in dispute in accordance with the market value fixed by the Collector in order to charge the stamp duty, which is the correct market value."

In the opinion of this court, there was no compulsion for the plaintiff to, at the stage of filing the suit, prove or establish the claim that the suit lands were revenue paying and the details of such revenue paid. Once it is conceded that the value of the land [per explanation to Section 7 (iv-A)] is to be determined according to either sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of the Act, this meant that the concept of "market value" - a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A). This aspect was lost sight of by the High Court, in the facts of this case. The reasoning and conclusions of the High Court, are therefore, not sustainable."

4. In view of the above, the appeal is admitted for hearing.

5. Issue notices to the respondents through ordinary process, registered post acknowledgment due as well as by Email and WhatsApp, if available.

6. Steps to be taken within a week.

7. List on 23.11.2023.

8. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 21.07.2023 and 09.08.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Almora in Original Suit No.47/2022 shall remain stayed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 23.08.2023 Rajni