Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Irshad Ali, J.
Paras Nath and Others – Appellants
Versus
Addl. District Judge A. Nagar and Others – Respondents
Misc. Single No. 2732 of 2019
Decided On : 28-08-2019
U.P. Amendment Act, 1938 – Sections 7(iv)(c), 7(iv-A) – Schedule II – Article 17(iii) –Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and was recorded owner of plot No. 310 – A sale deed was executed in favour of Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal, who belongs to the same community. Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal executed sale deed in favour of Sri. Laljeet, Amarjeet and Chhotelal – Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal belongs to Scheduled Caste community and purchasers-Sri. Laljeet and Amarjeet belongs to Scheduled Caste community, but Sri. Chhotelal Verma fraudulently declared himself to be Scheduled Caste Category but he belongs to Other Backward Category, therefore, sale deed executed in favour of Sri. Chhotelal Verma was void – Sri. Chhotelal Verma also executed sale deed in favour of Sri. Hardeep Singh –Petitioners and original tenure holder entered into compromise through notary affidavit stating that Sri. Ram Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, therefore, he could not execute sale deed in his favour but permitted petitioners to construct their building on his plot and in pursuance thereof, construction was made to open shop for running their business –Petitioners filed suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction against respondent No. 3-defendant –Petitioners paid Court fee on basis of revenue rent paid by owner of land –Commission report was submitted along with site plan – Issues were framed and in regard to Court fee, issue Nos. 3 and 4 were framed –Court below vide order decided issue Nos. 3 and 4 and Court fee was fixed on value of sale deed – Against order passed by lower Court, revision was filed under Section 115 CPC before District Judge,who rejected revision and affirmed order passed on issue Nos. 3 and 4 by holding that Court fees fixed by trial Court is just and valid – Held, Position in State of Punjab is entirely different from State of U.P. and effect of U.P. Amendment Act was not issue, which arose for consideration in above case – Judgment in case of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh would not apply to present case – Writ Petition Dismissed. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 33).
Facts of The Case:
Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and was recorded owner of plot No. 310 – A sale deed was executed in favour of Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal, who belongs to the same community. Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal executed sale deed in favour of Sri. Laljeet, Amarjeet and Chhotelal – Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal belongs to Scheduled Caste community and purchasers-Sri. Laljeet and Amarjeet belongs to Scheduled Caste community, but Sri. Chhotelal Verma fraudulently declared himself to be Scheduled Caste Category but he belongs to Other Backward Category, therefore, sale deed executed in favour of Sri. Chhotelal Verma was void – Sri. Chhotelal Verma also executed sale deed in favour of Sri. Hardeep Singh –Petitioners and original tenure holder entered into compromise through notary affidavit stating that Sri. Ram Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, therefore, he could not execute sale deed in his favour but permitted petitioners to construct their building on his plot and in pursuance thereof, construction was made to open shop for running their business –Petitioners filed suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction against respondent No. 3-defendant –Petitioners paid Court fee on basis of revenue rent paid by owner of land –Commission report was submitted along with site plan – Issues were framed and in regard to Court fee, issue Nos. 3 and 4 were framed –Court below vide order decided issue Nos. 3 and 4 and Court fee was fixed on value of sale deed – Against order passed by lower Court, revision was filed under Section 115 CPC before District Judge, who rejected revision and affirmed order passed on issue Nos. 3 and 4 by holding that Court fees fixed by trial Court is just and valid.
Finding of The Court:
Position in State of Punjab is entirely different from State of U.P. and effect of U.P. Amendment Act was not issue, which arose for consideration in above case – Judgment in case of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh would not apply to present case.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
Key Points: - The court fee for suits involving cancellation of sale deeds is governed by Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, requiring valuation of the property (!) . - The value of immovable property for court fee purposes is computed as thirty times the revenue payable if land is revenue-bearing, or market value if it is a building [pp. 35-39]. - Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act does not apply because the suit involves cancellation of a sale deed, which is covered by other provisions [pp. 48-50].
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and to Sri. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
2. On the instruction issued by this Court, Sri. Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel addressed to this Court on the point involved.
3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 08.01.2019, passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 27.02.2018, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the Court fee deposited in filing the suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction with consequential relief has been declared to be insufficient.
4. Factual matrix of the case is that plot No. 310 was originally recorded in the name of Sri. Ram Kumar and plot No. 311 was recorded as Banjar land situated in Village Palai Kalyanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkarnagar.
5. Sri. Raj Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and was recorded as owner of plot No. 310. A sale deed was executed on 02.01.1992 in favour of Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal, who belongs to the same community. Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal executed a sale deed on 09.01.1992 in favour of Sri. Laljeet, Amarjeet and Chhotelal.
6. Sri. Ram Bali and Ram Himanchal belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the purchasers-Sri. Laljeet and Amarjeet belongs to Scheduled Caste community, but Sri. Chhotelal Verma fraudulently declared himself to be Scheduled Caste Category but he belongs to Other Backward Category, therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of Sri. Chhotelal Verma was void. Sri. Chhotelal Verma also executed a sale deed on 15.02.2014 in favour of Sri. Hardeep Singh.
7. The petitioners and original tenure holder Sri. Ram Kumar entered into a compromise through notary affidavit stating that Sri. Ram Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, therefore, he could not execute the sale deed in his favour but permitted the petitioners to construct their building on his plot and in pursuance thereof, the construction was made to open shop for running their business.
8. The petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 3-defendant. The petitioners paid Court fee on the basis of revenue rent paid by the owner of the land and value of the building by calculating the value of Rs. 5 Lacs and revenue rent after multiplying thirty times was Rs. 60/- and the Court fee paid was Rs. 502/-.
9. A Commission report was submitted on 24.04.2014 along with site plan. Issues were framed and in regard to Court fee, issue Nos. 3 and 4 were framed. The Court below vide order dated 27.02.2018 decided the issue Nos. 3 and 4 and Court fee was fixed on the value of the sale deed, which was Rs. 8,26,000/-.
10. Against the order passed by the lower Court dated 27.02.2018, revision was filed under Section 115 CPC before the District Judge, Ambedkarnagar, who rejected the revision and affirmed the order passed on issue Nos. 3 and 4 by holding that the Court fees fixed by the trial Court is just and valid.
11. The orders dated 27.02.2018 and 08.01.2019 have been assailed by means of the present writ petition.
12. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.
13. He next submitted that no relief has been claimed against the private respondent No. 3 (4) in the suit, therefore, the decree passed if any will not have any legal binding upon him.
14. He further submitted that the boundaries of plot No. 1097 and 1096 are different and name of the petitioners have been entered in the Parivar Register.
15. He next submitted that the Court fee paid is sufficient, therefore, both the Courts below have committed manifest error of law in deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 4 against the petitioners. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool
SupremeToday
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
