RAJKUMAR JAIN Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undisputedly, present petitioner had filed civil suit for declaration of title, cancellation/avoidance of the document and permanent injunction submitting inter alia that the suit document under which the plaintiff is said to have received a sum of Rs. 1,11,600/- in fact would not bind his interest because, the same was got executed after playing fraud upon the plaintiff. It appears that during pendency of the suit an objection came to be raised by defendant No. 1 that in accordance with the guideline framed by the Collector of Stamps, the property was valued for a sum of Rs. 4,94,500/- and the purchaser was required to pay additional stamp duty and additional registration charges, therefore, the value of the property would be 4,94,500/-. On the basis of pleading of the parties, issue No. 5 was cast by learned trial court to the effect that whether the plaintiff had valued the suit property and had paid appropriate court-fee. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was required to value the suit for a sum of Rs. 4,94,500/ - and was obliged to pay Court-fee accordingly. Placing reliance upon a judgment of our own High Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar v. Harishanker [1987 (II) MPWN 33], the Court observed that the stamp duty would be payable on the sale price and as in the present market, the market value of the property was 4,94,500/- the plaintiff was obliged to pay court-fee on the said amount.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fair understanding of the judgment in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra) would be that the court-fee is required to be paid on the sale price and not on the market value. It is also submitted by him that for the purpose of section 7 (iv) (c) of the court-fees Act, the plaintiff would be required to pay fixed court-fee if he is not a party to the suit document and on the basis of value of the document, if he is a party to the document. His submission is that the Court below could not properly appreciate the distinction between sale price and the market value.

(3.) Shri Bhargava learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that if the property was registered for a sum of Rs. 4,94,500/-, then that should be taken to be the face value of the document and the plaintiff was rightly called upon to pay court-fee on the said document.