KAMALKISHORE Vs. JAGANNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision u/S. 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 6-9-03 passed by District Judge, Sehore in C.S. No.1-A/01.

(2.) Plaintiff/non-applicant Late Jagannath Prasad and Smt. Rajgunni instituted C.S. No. 1-A/01 seeking declaration of nullity of registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 saidt to have been executed by plaintiff Late Jagannath Prasad on the ground that defendant/applicants got executed the registered sale deeds aforesaid by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. As per para 15 of the plaint (Annexure A-1), fixed Court fees for declaration and injunction has been paid. Defendantapplicants inter alia contended mat the registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 were executed in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-, therefore, under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, plaintiff/non-applicants are required to pay ad valorem Court fees. The Court below vide impugned order dated 6-9-03 held that payment of ad valorem Court fees for the relief of declaration and injunction as set up in plaint (Annexure A-1) is not required. Being aggrieved, defendant/applicants have preferred this revision u/S. 115 C.P.C. Admittedly, plaintiff Late Jagannath Prasad said to have executed the registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 of the value Rs. 2,10,000/- in favour of defendant/applicants. In Pratap v. Punia Bai, 1976 Jab LJ 703 : AIR 1977 Madh Pra 108 it has been held that where a person who is party to an agreement or transaction and his allegation is that it is not binding on him because it was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, it is necessary for him to seek the consequential relief of setting aside such agreement or transaction and as such the suit falls within the purview of Section 7 (c) of the Court Fees Act. In Kuntidevi v. Roshanlal, 1987 MPLJ 25 in similar circumstances, it has been held that in a suit for declaration by executant of sale deed that it was illegal and void on ground of fraud and being without consideration, he is required to pay the ad valorem Court fees under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Consequential relief of setting aside the sale deeds dated 8-7-99 is implied in the relief seeking declaration of nullity of sale deeds aforesaid. As such, the suit is covered u/S. 7 (iv)(c) of the Court fees Act and plaintiff/non-applicants are required to pay ad valorem Court fees to seek declaration of nullity of sale deeds dated 8-7-99. The order impugned passed by Court below suffers from material irregularity-illegality.

(3.) Consequently, the revision is allowed. Setting aside the order impugned passed by Court below, plaintiff/non-applicants are directed to pay the requisite Court fees u/S. 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.