YOGENDRA KUMAR SAINI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nipun Singh, counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) This revision has been filed from the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, dated 23.05.2014 passed in Suit No. 416 of 2012, rejecting the application (27-C) of the revisionist for direction to the plaintiff to supply Court Fee in the suit on the valuation of Rs. 20 lac.

(3.) Mahesh Kumar Tayal filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 416 of 2012) for declaring the sale-deed dated 07.09.2012, allegedly executed by him in favour of the defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any alteration and demolition in the property in dispute. The plaint case was that the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiff and fell in his share in private partition between his brothers. After partition, the plaintiff constructed three shop and stair case at ground floor and residential accommodation at first floor and is residing in it. In one shop at first floor the plaintiff is doing business and one shop was let out to one Intzar son of Natthu. Third shop was let out to the defendant Yogendra Kumar Tyagi and his brother Sushil Kumar Tyagi on 01.12.2000, for period of three months on the rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. Later on a registered lease deed dated 16.12.2000 was executed by the parties. The defendant requested the plaintiff to raise construction over the land lying at backside of his shop as he wanted to increase his business and let out to him as his brother had already shifted his business to some other place and agreed to pay rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay Rs. 7 lac by way of security to the plaintiff and required construction would be raised by the plaintiff. On 07.09.2012, the plaintiff and his wife went to Tahsil Shamli for executing lease agreement and took a cheque of Rs. 7 lac as the security money. However, the defendant got a sale deed executed and obtained signature of the plaintiff in the garb of lease agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff made construction over the backside land. On 11.09.2012, the defendant began to demolish the flooring of the shop, which was objected by the plaintiff, then he informed then he had obtained sale deed of the shop in dispute. The sale deed was obtained in garb of lease agreement by committing fraud. The defendant was the old tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and his wife were semi literate persons and acted on the belief of the defendant. Value of the property in dispute was not less than Rs. 20 lac however in the sale deed sale consideration of Rs. 8 lac has been shown. The suit was valued at Rs.8 lac i.e. on the sale consideration. Court fee of Rs. 200/- was paid for the relief of declaration of the sale deed as null and void and Rs. 500/- was paid for the relief of permanent injunction.