A non-executant of a deed seeking a declaration that the deed is void along with consequential relief is bound to pay court fees in respect of the consideration mentioned in the deed.

Soumen Sen, J.

This revisional application is directed against an order dated 13th August, 2015 passed in connection with the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants praying for direction upon the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees on the basis of the value mentioned in the deed dated 14th August, 2012.

2. The said petition filed by the defendants was allowed.

3. The plaintiffs have challenged this order in this revisional application.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

(A) A decree for declaration that the Regd. Deed of sale dated 14/8/2012 executed by def. No. 1 to 6 in collusion with def. No.7 in favour of defendants No.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati (now dead) is a fraudulent deed collusive in character and in complete breach of trust on the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 13/8/2012 on the footing that the terms embodied in the Regd Power of Attorney dated 13/8/2012 has not been complied with and as such the said deed dated 14/8/2012 is a sham transaction & not acted upon and/or inoperative and also not binding upon the plaintiffs.

A decree for further declaration that the defendants no. 8 to 15 including Bakula Jati (now dead) have not acquired any right, title & interest over the ‘C’ schedule property except “D” Schedule property on the strength of the alleged fraudulent deed dated 14/8/2012 executed by defs. No. 1 to 6 in collusion with def No.7.

(B) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati (now dead) including their men & agent from creating any obstruction and disturbances in the matter of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and from taking forcible possession & form making any construction in any manner over the property described in schedule “C” herein below except a portion of the “C” schedule which is described in Schedule “D” herein below and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the def. No.16 including his men and agents from creating any objection and disturbances in the matter of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and form taking forcible possession & form changing the nature & character & also from making any construction over the “C” schedule property herein below except “D” Schedule property.

(C) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.16 not to alienate and/or transfer the “E” Schedule property to any outsider on the strength of the Regd. Deed of Sale dated 20/3/2013.

5. The plaintiff at Paragraph 18 of the Plaint stated that for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.125/- out of which Rs.100/- for declaration and for Rs.25/- for injunction and the ad valorem court fees are paid accordingly.

6. In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant No.7 and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs executed a registered deed of sale on 14th August, 2012 which was subsequently registered on 16th August, 2012 in respect of entire “C” schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. The said deed was executed in abuse of the power vested with the defendant Nos.1 to 6 including the defendant No.7 and is a sham transaction. The defendant Nos.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati since deceased did not acquire any right, title and interest over the “C” schedule property on the strength of such fraudulent deed. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have been in possession over the “C” schedule property excepting a portion thereof which is described in schedule “D” as the plaintiffs settled the property in the defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.8 to 15 including Bakula Jati since deceased thereafter sold about 7 decimal of land described as ‘E’ schedule property in 1 (one) Dag being old Dag No.1023 Hal Dag No.1089 in favour of defendant No.16 which was subsequently registered on 23rd March, 2013. Th