Proper valuation of plaints for court fees and payment of court fees based on the market value of the suit lands are essential for compliance with legal requirements.

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. By this common order I shall dispose of I.A. No. 17222/2010 filed by defendant no. 18 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) in CS(OS) No. 1521/2009 as also I.A. Nos. 13229/2010 & 17219/2010 filed by defendant nos. 8 and 18 respectively under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in CS(OS) No. 1459/2010 for rejection of the plaints in the both the suits which were filed by different persons, all of whom claimed to be the descendants of one Ganga Sahai who owned a big chunk of land measuring 136 bighas and 11 biswas falling in different khasras in village Rajokri and which lands were inherited by the legal heirs of Ganga Sahai after his death including the plaintiffs in these two suits. The two suits were filed by the plaintiffs that the defendants in the suits had forged title documents in their favour in respect of their ancestral lands and on the basis of those forged documents/sale deeds they were claiming themselves to have become owners. In both the suits, plaints whereof and averments made therein are verbatim the same and the prayers made in the two suits are also similar. They have claimed a decree of declaration to the effect that various sale deeds(more than twenty) purporting to have been executed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs through one attorney were null and void and also for decrees for cancellation those sale deeds as also the power of attorneys based on which various sale deeds were executed.

2. Some of the defendants have sought rejection of the plaints in both the suits on various grounds including the one that the plaints were not valued properly for the purposes of payment of court fees inasmuch as the court fees had been paid on the basis of sale considerations shown in different sale deeds which were sought to be cancelled instead of paying court fees on the market value of the lands in dispute covered under the forged sale deeds. Another ground taken is that the civil suits in respect of declaration of the bhumidari rights, which according to the defendants the plaintiffs were indirectly claiming in these suits in the garb of suits for declaration simplicitor, in respect of the lands in suit are barred in view of the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

3. The plaintiffs have opposed these applications. As far as the objection regarding wrong valuation of the suits for the purposes of court fees is concerned the stand of the plaintiffs is that since they are claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit lands and which claim of theirs has to be accepted as correct while considering applications under order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the plaintiffs are not supposed to pay court fees on the market value of the suit lands. It is also being claimed that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try these suits as no bhumidari rights are being sought to be established by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands and a simple declaration is being sought that the sale deeds being relied upon by the defendants for claiming ownership over the suit lands which are ancestral lands of the plaintiffs were forged and that declaration only the civil court can give and not the revenue court. Even during the course of arguments learned counsel for the plaintiffs had reiterated these points.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the two suits I am of the view that before proceeding further in these suits the plaintiffs should first be asked to value the plaints properly since at present they do not stand valued properly. It is undisputed that two suits initially were filed in the year 2009 by different persons claiming themselves to be the descendants of late Shri Ganga Sahai, who was the owner of the suit lands which after his death had become coparcenery property, as per the case of the plaintiffs. One of those suits was registered as CS(OS) No.2287/2009, “Om Prakash and Others vs. Savita Jindal & Ors.” and the ot