DEVENDRA AND OTHERS Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2016 by which application filed under section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act read with section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act has been rejected.

(2.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against the present petitions. According to the plaintiff he and his brother are the owners of land bearing survey No.356/1, area 0.712 hectares. The said land was divided into various plots and sold by plaintiff and his brother. That one of the plot ad-measuring 20/36 ft. (total 720 sq. ft.) received by the plaintiff by way of partition was given to Jamunalal, father of defendants No. 1 to 3 for residential purpose due to friendly relation with him on the condition that during his life time he will reside in a temporary structure made on it and after his death the same would be returned to the plaintiffs. Shri Jamunalal died in the year 2015 and when plaintiffs demanded possession of the said plot from defendants No. 1 to 3 they demolished the temporary structure and instead of handing over possession to the plaintiff it was informed that they have purchased the said plot by way of registered deed from their father and later on they sold a part of the said land admeasuring 20x8 sq. ft. to defendant No.4. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit that sale deed dated 2.7.2013 and 14.11.2014 be declared void and not binding on them and the plaintiffs be declared as owner of the said land and the defendants be restrained to make construction over the said plot.

(3.) After notice petitioners/defendants filed an application under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act read with section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act alleging that as per sale deed dated 2.7.2013 the value of the property is Rs. 19,75,000/- and the present market value is Rs.26 lacs, therefore, plaintiffs be directed to value the suit as per the market value and pay the ad valorem court-fees. It is further submitted that the land has been diverted and it is no more agricultural land, therefore, it is required to be valued as per the market guidelines.