RAM GOPAL Vs. VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Original Suit No. 456 of 1980 was filed by one Drikpal Singh (Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2) against Smt. Lalti, Ram Jiawan-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the present petition) and Ram Gopal, Madan Gopal, Ashok Kumar, defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (present petitioners) in the Court of Munsif, Fatehpur seeking decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 16-10-80, damages for demolishing plaintiff's house decree for possession against defendants along with cost of the suit and other ancillary reliefs. In the plaint (Annexure 7 to the petition) plaintiff asserted that he had become owner of the property under compromise decree filed in another suit No. 353 of 1978 (para 12 of the plaint). Defendant No. 1, who was originally allowed to occupy property in question as licensee, became dishonest and with intention to inflict harm to the plaintiff maliciously executed fictitious sale deed dated 16-10-1980 in favour of the defendant No. 2, who had full knowledge of the aforementioned comprise decree in original suit No. 353 of 1978 and title of the plaintiff. It is contended that disputed sale deed was executed in collusion with defendant No. 2 in order to cause damages to the plaintiff. By amendment in the plaint it is further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No. 2 had executed another sale deed 23-2-82, in favour of defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Plaintiff indicated valuation of the suit and paid Court fee accordingly. Defendant appeared and a issue was framed regarding correction of valuation of the suit. A Commissioner's report was invited. Trial Court means of judgment and order dated 23-1-84 (Annexure 2 to the petition) decided issue, being Issue No. 10. Trial Court held that valuation of the suit ought to be Rs. 20,000 and plaintiff was directed to amend the suit.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 15 of 1984 (Drikpal Singh v. Smt. Lalti and others) and said revision was allowed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Fetehpur vide judgment and order dated 9-11-1984 (Annexure 3 to the petition). Learned Additional District Judge considered the matter at length and has given its reasoning for coming to the conclusion that valuation adopted by trial Court was not justified. It has accordingly set aside trial Court. Judgment and order dated 23-1-84 (Annexure 2 to petition) and it sent the case back to the trial Court directing it to decide the question of valuation and Court-fee i.e. Issue No. 10, afresh keeping in mind the observation made in judgment and order dated 9-11-94.