JUDGMENT :

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

This civil revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 6, Meerut in Original Suit No. 846 of 2014 (Smt. Ratni Devi v. Smt. Asha Hans).

2. In brief facts of the case are that revisionist, Smt. Ratni Devi filed a suit for declaratory decree to declare the sale-deed dated 7.5.2014 null and void registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mawana, District Meerut and to send its information to the concerned Sub-Registrar.

3. According to the plaint and the revision, Smt. Ratni Devi (now deceased) was the owner and Bhumidhar with transferable rights of khasra No. 460 area 0.5060 hectare and khasra No. 462 area 0.4430 hectare situated in Village Himaunpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut. She was an old and ill lady. Her cardiac treatment was going on. Respondent defendant is the daughter of the revisionist-plaintiff. The plaintiff was getting pension after death of her husband who was working in MCD, Delhi. When for the purposes of purchasing fertilizers she took a copy of khatauni on 19.7.2014, she came to know that defendant had got executed a sale-deed in her favour of her land. The plaintiff obtained a certified copy through advocate on 7.5.2014 then she came to know that it is shown that in lieu of Rs. 7,50,000/- she has sold 0.1145 hectare and 0.6707 hectare land to the defendant in which husband of the defendant and one Anil Kumar Sharma, advocate, Tehsil Mawana have been shown marginal witnesses.

4. The petitioner had neither proposed to sell her land to the defendant nor ever executed any sale-deed in her favour. On 7.5.2014 in the garb of increase of pension she was taken by the defendant and in good faith defendant got signed some papers telling it to be the pension papers which she had not read over. By playing fraud the defendant has shown the execution of sale-deed. There was no necessity of sale of property in suit. The plaintiff neither sold the land nor obtained any consideration.

5. During pendency of the case the plaintiff died. Her three sons namely Dinesh Kumar, Dev Kumar and Anand Kumar were her heirs and she had executed sale-deed on 20.8.2014 about complete movable and immovable property in their favour. Dev Kumar died on 18.3.2015, therefore, his heirs have been arrayed as plaintiff. When the matter was reported to the defendant she accepted her fault and assured to get the sale-deed cancelled but later on clearly refused to do so. Hence, cause of action arose and suit had been filed.

6. During the course of hearing on 19.4.2016, issue No. 2 regarding improper valuation of the suit and payment of insufficient Court fee, issue No. 3 were decided. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned the Court assumed that the plaintiff has properly valued the suit but about the payment of Court fee the lower Court held that since the property has been valued at Rs. 7,50,000/-, and the plaintiff was party to the sale-deed, therefore, under Section 7(IV)-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 the plaintiff would pay ad valorem Court fee at the market value of the case property.

7. Instead of complying with the order regarding issue No. 3, the plaintiff moved 41-Ka amendment application, in which the plaintiff proposed to value the suit for relief 'A' at Rs. 600/- (thirty times of the annual rent of RS. 20/-) and proposed to pay the Court fees Rs. 87.50/-and for proposed relief 'B' regarding permanent injunction valuing the growing crops at Rs. 6 lacs proposed to pay maximum Court fee Rs. 500/-.

8. Objection was filed by the defendant and after hearing it was held that by way of amendment application the facts proposed to be inserted in paragraph-13 of the plaint would nullify the order dated 19.4.2016. Hence, the amendment application was not maintainable. Though an option was given to the plaintiff to move separate amendment application regarding the rest facts proposed to be inserted by way of amendm