KISHORELAL Vs. MOTIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Court below. A suit has been filed by the petitioners on the allegations that they are the owners of the house in dispute. For borrowing some loan from the non -petitioner, the non -petitioner wanted to secure the sum and, therefore, to satisfy the non -petitioner a sale -deed was executed in his favour by the plaintiffs -petitioners in the year 1965. The plaintiffs -petitioners had, thereafter, paid the total dues of the loan, but being uneducated, they had not got a separate document executed in their favour; but they continued to remain in possession of the house in dispute.

(2.) IT is further stated in the plaint that in the year 1979, the portion of the suit house was sold by the petitioner for the family need. It is also contended that the value of the property remained stagnant from years 1956 to 1979. As such, the non -petitioner has raised no objection, but in the year 1990 non -petitioner sought the permission from the ceiling authorities for selling the disputed house, the petitioners had raised objection before the Ceiling Authority and in view of the mala fide intention of the non -petitioner and his design to dispose of the house of the petitioners, they had to approach the civil Court by filing the suit. In the suit, the objections were raised by the non -applicant that as the petitioners wanted to avoid the sale, they were required to pay ad valorem court -fees on the sale amount. The petitioners contended that it was not the cancellation of the document for which the suit was filed. The plaintiffs had prayed declaration that as the document was meant for security and it was not the sale, the non -petitioner had no rights in the house. Further, as they had paid all dues to the non -petitioner -defendant, he had no charge or the right on the property. These consideration are also supported from the circumstances. The petitioners had remained in possession of the disputed house over all these years, i.e. from 19.10.65 upto the date of filing of the suit and the non -petitioner had made no effort to seek possession of the house from the petitioners. Obviously, for the reason that the transaction itself had ended after the relief of payment of dues by the plaintiffs to the defendant and in these circumstances, it was contended that since the declaration alone was prayed with the permanent injunction against the defendant -non -petitioner, they had paid the fixed Court fee and were not required to pay Court -fees ad valorem. The learned trial Court rejected their contentions, hence this petition.

(3.) THE revision petition is, therefore; allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.