MEENAKSHI DEVI Vs. BAKSAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant No. 7 against the order dated 30.05.2012 whereby her application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is not a party to the release deed and the sale deed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that respondent - Smt. Baksar Devi has challenged the release deed dated 10.04.2009, executed by her and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11.

(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the suit for declaration was filed by respondent No. 1, taking the plea that she was in possession of 1/10th share in the land described in the plaint, measuring 168 kanals 16 marlas and her share was 16 kanals 18 marlas, falling in the revenue estate of Kaliawas, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were her nephews and she was residing at her in -laws house at Delhi. Defendant No. 1 had approached her on the ground that his mother was ill and she had come on the 05/06.04.2009 to the village to see her ailing sister -in -law and remained there till 12.04.2009. The defendants had hatched a conspiracy that some application for partition had to be filed before the Tehsildar and under that impression, she came to the Tehsil premises on 10.04.2009 and her thumb impressions were obtained. Later on, she came to know on 10.08.2009 that release deeds had been obtained in respect of the suit land and general power of attorney had also been executed and she was an illiterate lady. The general power of attorney had been cancelled on 07.09.2009 and defendant No. 1, without any authority, had sold the property to petitioner -defendant No. 7 vide sale deed dated 12/25.08.2009. Resultantly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed on the ground that the sale deed executed was of the value of Rs. 19,20,000/ - and total expenses of Rs. 70,000/ - had been incurred on the registration. The Court fees had wrongly been affixed at Rs. 25/ - and the value of the land was Rs. 20 lacs and therefore, the appropriate Court fees was required to the extent of Rs. 84,370/ -.