The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the suit property for court fee purposes, in cases involving cancellation of a sale-deed, should be based on the market value of the subject-matter of sale, as per the relevant legal provisions and case law.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, Counsel for the revisionist. This revision has been filed from the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, dated 23.5.2014 passed in Suit No. 416 of 2012, rejecting the application (27-C) of the revisionist for direction to the plaintiff to supply Court Fee in the suit on the valuation of  Rs. 20 lac.

2. Mahesh Kumar Tayal filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 416 of 2012) for declaring the sale-deed dated 7.9.2012, allegedly executed by him in favour of the defendant as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any alteration and demolition in the property in dispute. The plaint case was that the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiff and fell in his share in private partition between his brothers. After partition, the plaintiff constructed three shop and stair case at ground floor and residential accommodation at first floor and is residing in it. In one shop at first floor the plaintiff is doing business and one shop was let out to one Intzar son of Natthu. Third shop was let out to the defendant Yogendra Kumar Tyagi and his brother Sushil Kumar Tyagi on 1.12.2000, for period of three months on the rent of  Rs. 1000/- per month. Later on a registered lease deed dated 16.12.2000 was executed by the parties. The defendant requested the plaintiff to raise construction over the land lying at backside of his shop as he wanted to increase his business and let out to him as his brother had already shifted his business to some other place and agreed to pay rent of  Rs. 3000/- per month. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay  Rs. 7 lac by way of security to the plaintiff and required construction would be raised by the plaintiff. On 7.9.2012, the plaintiff and his wife went to Tahsil Shamli for executing lease agreement and took a cheque of  Rs. 7 lac as the security money. However, the defendant got a sale-deed executed and obtained signature of the plaintiff in the garb of lease agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff made construction over the backside land. On 11.9.2012, the defendant began to demolish the flooring of the shop, which was objected by the plaintiff, then he informed then he had obtained sale-deed of the shop in dispute. The sale-deed was obtained in garb of lease agreement by committing fraud. The defendant was the old tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and his wife were semi literate persons and acted on the belief of the defendant. Value of the property in dispute was not less than  Rs. 20 lac however in the sale-deed sale consideration of  Rs. 8 lac has been shown. The suit was valued at  Rs. 8 lac i.e., on the sale consideration. Court fee of  Rs. 200/- was paid for the relief of declaration of the sale-deed as null and void and  Rs. 500/- was paid for the relief of permanent injunction.

3. The suit was contested by the revisionist, who filed his written statement and denied plaint allegation. In additional plea, it has been stated that the defendant was tenant in the shop in dispute. The plaintiff wanted to sell it and expressed his willingness of selling the shop. The defendant agreed to purchase it for  Rs. 8 lac. The plaintiff executed the sale-deed dated 7.9.2012 after taking sale consideration of  Rs. 1 lac in cash and  Rs. 7 lac through cheque and got the sale-deed registered. Allegation of taking the vacant land alongwith shop in dispute on the rent of  Rs. 3,000/- per month was false. There was no vacant land in the back portion of the shop in dispute as such allegation in this respect is false. No fraud has been committed on the plaintiff and sale-deed was voluntarily executed and signed by him after reading its contents. The plaintiff has read up to 9th class and his wife was a school teacher. The plaintiff is doing business of Iron Store and allegation that he was handicap, is false. Allegation that cheque of  Rs. 7 lac was given for