RAM NIWAS Vs. SOMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.2.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.36-A/2016 whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The contentions of the petitioners is that the respondents have filed a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiffs be declared as Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No.1119 area being 1.01 hectare and are also entitled to record their names in the revenue papers. They have further sought the relief of injunction by way of amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs further sought the relief for declaration to the effect that, the sale deed dated 13.02.2002 be declared void and ineffective. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed saying that the plaintiff being successor of Hargovind and after his death they have succeeded the property, the relief which has been prayed by the plaintiffs in the civil suit reflects that the plaintiffs have sought for declaration as well as declaration of sale deed dated 13.02.2002 null and void, executed by Hargovind in favour of the petitioners stating that the suit property was obtained by Hargovind in Patta from the government, hence the same could not have been transferred. He has further sought the relief for declaring the sale deed 13.02.2002 null and void and has further prayed for entering their names in the revenue records. Thus, on such relief, the plaintiffs are required to pay Ad valorem Court fees. The provisions of Section 7 (iv) c of schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870. are applicable for computation of the fees payable in the present case. Thus, he has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and has prayed for dismissal of the civil suit. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiffs saying that they are not signatory of the sale deed, therefore, they are not bound to pay Ad-valorem court fees and has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Israt Jahan vs. Rajia Begum and Ors. reported in 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with the further direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to pay Ad-valorem court fees.

(3.) The respondents by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Manish Parashar vs Pratap reported in 2019 (4) MPLJ 439 have contended that they are not the executant of the sale deed and does not have their signatures on the sale deed, therefore are not required to pay Ad valorem court fee. The order is just and proper and does not call for any interference.