RAM PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by th6 defendants against order dated 3-2-2001 of the First Civil Judge Class-I, Umaria in Civil Suit No. 97-A of 2000 by which it has been held that the valuation of the suit for purposes of the Court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction is proper.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1 Ram Prasad Agrawal purchased 16 ft. x 40 ft. of land from him for Rs. 25,000/ -. He took him for execution and registration of the sale-deed and then played fraud upon him. According to the plaintiff he has been defrauded on two counts. Firstly, the land which has been included in the registered sale-deed dated 28-9-1999 exceeds the area which was agreed to be sold and secondly, the amount of consideration shown in the sale-deed is Rs. 50,000/- whereas he has been paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- only. He claims that he is in possession of the land in dispute. He has claimed the relief of declaration that the sale-deed is the product of fraud and misrepresentation and he has also claimed the relief that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the , plaintiff on the land in dispute.

(3.) IT is well settled that the question of Court-fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court long back in Sathappa v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245, and has been recently referred to by the Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chand v. MPEB, 2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 318 = 2000 (3) MPLJ 522.