RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Jameela (Smt.) - Appellant
Versus
Man Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 38 of 2014.
Decided On : 14-03-2014
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - VALUATION OF SUIT - COURT FEES - SECTION 40(D) OF THE RAJASTHAN COURT FEES AND SUIT VALUATION ACT, 1961 - COURT FEES FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF EXCHANGE AGREEMENT TO BE COMPUTED ON MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN IN EXCHANGE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 13.10.2011, alleging that the defendant agreed to transfer two properties in exchange for the plaintiff's property, with an advance payment of Rs. 6,000/- and the balance of Rs. 19,000/- paid on 15.11.2011. The trial court directed the plaintiff to properly value the suit, which the plaintiff failed to do, leading to the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. The first appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The agreement was not an exchange agreement as defined under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it provided for the execution of sale deeds in favor of any person as directed by either party. The court fees for a suit for specific performance of an exchange agreement under Section 40(d) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, should be computed on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange, not merely on the consideration mentioned in the agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement dated 13.10.2011 was an exchange agreement as defined under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 2. Whether the court fees for a suit for specific performance of an exchange agreement should be computed on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange or on the consideration mentioned in the agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The agreement was not an exchange agreement as defined under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it provided for the execution of sale deeds in favor of any person as directed by either party. 2. The court fees for a suit for specific performance of an exchange agreement under Section 40(d) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, should be computed on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange, not merely on the consideration mentioned in the agreement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's and first appellate court's decisions to reject the plaint due to the plaintiff's failure to properly value the suit.
"bdjkjukekbdjkjukek ,d ge vkt fnukad 13-10-2011 dks ceqdek tks/kiqj 'kgj esa vius fof/kd vf/kdkj ds gd (VkbZVy) dh LFkkoj lEifRr ds fofu;e ewY; fodz; dh lafonk ds djkj dk nLrkost rgjhj o rdehy dj nsrs gSa oks ;g gS fd %&1- ekuflag iq= Jh v[ksflag] tkfr pkSgku jktiwr] fuoklh nsgyh gky fBdkuk ukbZ;ksa dh cxsph ds ihNs iwtk jksVh gkml] pkSikluh jksM+] tks/kiqj (jkt0) ftls vkxs ;gka bdjkjukek esa izFke i{k ds uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxkA),oa2- Jherh tehyk iRuh Jh v[rj] fuoklh IykWV la[;k 856&,] ljnkjiqjk] pkSikluh jksM+] tks/kiqj jkt0 ftls ;gka vkxs bdjkjukek esa f}rh; i{k ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxkA 1- fd izFke i{k ds fof/kd vf/kdkj ds gd VkbZVy dh [kjhnlqnk ,oa dCtklqnk LFkkoj izFke lEifRr ,d edku okds esM+rh flykoVku dh efLtn ds ikl] tks/kiqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa gd dh nLrkost (Document of Title) izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k dks cryk, tks izFke i{k ds dCts esa gS] ftlds igpku gsrq lhek,sa mRrj esa Jherh vkeuk iRuh ejgwe vCnqy xQqj dk edku] nf{k.k esa esM+rh flykoV efLtn ls lqukjksa dk ckl esa tkus okyh ldM+h xyh] iwoZ esa jkLrk rFkk if'pe esa jgokl gS rFkk f}rh; lEifRr IykWaV la[;k 220 okds ch0ts0,l0 dkWyksuh] tks/kiqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlds igpku gsrq lhek,sa mRrj esa jkLrk] nf{k.k esa Jh gqd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.