Back
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI
Dharam Rao S/o Kameshwar Rao – Appellant
Versus
Shafiq Ahmed Khan (Died) – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute over the payment of ad valorem court fees in a civil suit concerning a sale deed related to a loan transaction. The plaintiff challenges an order requiring him to pay these fees.
The plaintiff asserts that he filed the suit for declaration and injunction, claiming a loan of Rs.10 lakhs secured by a sale deed. He contends that he paid fixed court fees based on the valuation, and the trial court erroneously ordered ad valorem fees.
The defendant's side argues that the order for ad valorem court fees is justified, and the impugned order is proper.
The legal principle applied indicates that if a non-executant seeks to declare a deed invalid or non-binding, only a fixed court fee is generally payable, unless the relief involves possession or other consequential relief, which might require ad valorem fees.
The court clarified that when a document is alleged to be void and non-binding, ad valorem fees are not payable. However, if the document is voidable (not void ab initio), ad valorem fees on the sale deed are appropriate, as the transaction is considered valid until challenged.
The court emphasized that the pleadings clearly establish the nature of the transaction as a loan secured by a sale deed, which is voidable, thereby justifying the requirement of ad valorem court fees.
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned court to pay the requisite court fees, with a 15-day grace period granted for such payment, and instructed the concerned court to expedite the matter.
The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and upheld its validity.
ORDER :
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon passed in Civil Suit No.8-A/2014 whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 – late Shafiq Ahmed and called upon the petitioner/plaintiff to pay advalorem courts fees.
3. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner would submit that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the plaint, it is specifically averred that he got a loan of Rs.10 lacs from the respondent/defendant late Shafiq Ahmed and for the security of the said loan a sale deed dated 26.06.2012 was executed. Though the plaintiff approached the respondent for repaying the loan and to discharge the debt however, the defendant denied repayment and also re-conveyance of the suit property, so the suit has been filed. He also submits that the plaintiff has paid fixed court fees which has been valued properly but the trial Court has erroneously held that ad-valorem is required.
4. He placed reliance in the matter of Sunil and others Vs. A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
