W.P.No.10431/2010
Chhannulal & others Smt.Hemlata
11.8.2010
Shri Vivek Mishra, counsel for petitioners.
This petition is directed against an order dated 19.1.2010
by the III Civil Judge Class-II, Balaqhat in civil suit no.75-
A/2009, by which the trial Court while deciding issues no.1 & 2
held that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit, the
plaintiffs are required to value the suit as per valuation of the
suit property.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that plaintiffs
were not party to the sale deed and in view of the settled law
by this Court in Rameshchandra & others Vs.
Jayendrasingh & others [2003(1) MPLJ 379] no ad-valorem
Court fee was required, the impugned order may be set aside.
It is settled law that to ascertain valuation for the
purposes of Court fee averments of the plaint are to be seen.
From the perusal of para 7 of the plaint the plaintiff has pleaded
thus :-
“;g fd jkelgk; tSlk fd n’kkZ;k x;k gS] fcekjh ls
ihfMr Fkk rFkk mldh lksp le> Hkh chekjh ls izHkkfor
Fkh A jkelgk; ds lkFk oknh dza 4 tks fd fof{kIr jgk
djrk Fkk] ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd okfn;ksa dh vuqifLFkfr
esa izfroknh ds ifr Jh fnus’k ixkfj;k us iM;a= jp dj
jkelgk; ls mldh vLoLFkrk dk ,oa oknh dzza 4 dk
fof{kIrrk dk vuqfpr ykHk mBk dj okfn;ksa dh tkudkjh
,oa lgefr ds cxSj fodz; i= iaft;r djok fn;k gS A
jkelgk; us dHkh Hkh fodz; i= esa n’kkZ; vuqlkj lkB
gtkj :i;s dh jkf’k izkIr ugh dh gS A mDr fodz; i=
loZnk >wBk ,oa fcuk eki tkus dk gS A”
The case of plaintiffs is that father of plaintiffs Ramsahay
was sick and his understanding was also affected by ailment.
Alongwith Ramsahay the plaintiff no.4 who is of unsound mind
was residing. It appears that in absence of plaintiffs, husband of
defendant Dinesh Chandra by conspiracy and taking advantage
W.P.No.10431/2010
Chhannulal & others Smt.Hemlata
of sickness of Ramsahay and unsound mind of plaintiff no.4 got
sale deed executed which could not come into the notice of
plaintiffs. Ramsahay had never received consideration of
Rs.60,000/-. The sale deed is false and without any
consideration. In para 8 the plaintiffs have further pleaded that
defendant by using undue influence and playing fraud on
Ramsahay got executed the sale deed without consideration.
The aforesaid fact shows that the sale deed was not void,
but could have been voidable and can be set aside on the basis
of pleading, but once the sale deed is not void then the plaintiffs
are required to value the suit property as per the valuation of
the sale deed and is further required to pay ad-valorem Court
fee on it. In view of aforesaid, if the trial Court has passed the
impugned order, no fault is found.
So far as judgment of Rameshchandra & others
(supra) is concerned, the learned Single Judge of this Court was
considering the case in which the plaintiffs were not party to the
sale deed and the plaintiffs were praying that the sale deed be
declared as void. The relief of cancellation of sale deed was not
prayed. The facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different and
the law laid down is not applicable in the facts of present case.
This petition is found without merit and is dismissed, with
no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (J.K.Maheshwari)
JUDGE JUDGE
M.