1. In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued while considering the respondent No.1/defendant No.1’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.

2. It is averred in the plaint that the suit land involved in WP227 No.978 of 2015 was purchased by the plaintiff on 29-10-2007 & 31-10-2007, whereas the suit land in WP227 No.1005 of 2015 was purchased on 31-10-2007. The defendant No.2 M/s Chidipal Builders & Contractors Private Limited had prior acquaintance, business terms as a relative of the plaintiff, therefore, for affecting mutation the plaintiff handed over his photographs and original sale deed to the defendant No.2, however, in July, 2011 he came to know about the fraudulent sale deed when he requested the defendant No.2 for handing over the original sale deed. At that time, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has forged his signature and executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 whereas, as a matter of fact, the petitioner/plaintiff has never executed the sale deed.

3. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of declaration at the rate which is mentioned as sale consideration in the sale deed, however, he has paid the fixed Court fees of Rs.500/- for declaration and Rs.500/- for permanent injunction on the reasoning that since the sale deed has been executed by forging his signature, in law, he is not a signatory to the sale deed and moreover he is in possession, therefore, fixed Court fees is payable.

4. By moving an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the defendant No.1 raised objection that the plaintiff being a party to the sale deed he is required to pay ad valorem Court fees. The trial Court has sustained the objection and by the impugned order it has directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fees.

5. On the strength of the Full Bench judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sunil Radhelia and Others v. Awadh Narayan and Others, 2010 (4) MPHT 477 (FB) it is argued that when the plaintiff is alleging that the sale deed is a result of fraud and he has never executed the sale deed, he is not required to pay ad valorem Court fees. It is also argued that the plaintiff is not seeking cancellation of the document, but he is seeking a declaration that the sale deed is void, therefore, he is required to pay Court fees as payable under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (‘the Act’ henceforth).

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would argue that the plaintiff being a party to the sale deed he is required to pay ad valorem Court fees, even if there is a pleading to the effect that the sale deed is a forged document.

7. True it is that in Sunil Radhelia (supra), the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in some what similar circumstances, has held that if the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, ad valorem Court fees is not payable and he can claim declaration simplicitor for which Court fee under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Act would be sufficient, however, the prior judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on 29-3-2010 in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112 has escaped notice of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh