GOMATIPRASAD Vs. MAHESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19/06/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-Ambah whereby the trial Court has directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay Ad Valorem Court Fee instead of Fixed Court Fee.

(2.) According to counsel for the petitioners, petitioners/plaintiffs are real brother and sister (son and daughter of respondent No.4/defendant No.4), and respondent No.5 is the real brother of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 who happens to be the father of petitioners as well as respondent No.5 executed a sale deed in favour of present respondents No.1 to 3, and sold the suit property to respondents No.1 to 3 representing himself as the sole owner and possessor of the suit property.

(3.) Petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction and contended that the suit property has been disposed of by respondent No.4 in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 without any authority because the property was ancestral in nature and therefore, present petitioners/plaintiffs are also holders of shares of the suit property and their shares could not be disposed of by respondents No.4 to other respondents. Consent of petitioners/plaintiffs was not taken before execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is settled in law that when any suit for annulment of the sale deed or for declaration in respect of sale deed as not binding over plaintiffs in which plaintiffs are not the party, then it entails Fixed Court Fee and not Ad Valorem Court Fee. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunil s/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and Others Vs. Awadh Narayan and Others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 431 as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Harinarayan Vs. Gulabchandra, 2011 (4) MPLJ, 447.