JUDGMENT :

Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of aforementioned writ petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2016, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, in Suit no. 24 of 2013 as well as in Suit no. 25 of 2013, both titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, whereby issue nos. 8 and 9 were decided against the petitioner / plaintiff.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, the same are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit, being O.S. no. 24 of 2013, titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 3. Another suit, being O.S. no. 25 of 2013, also titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no. 3. A further relief has been sought for granting permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute.

4. Defendants filed their written statements. It is contended that the relief of cancellation of sale deed in question has been sought, but the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.

5. Learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the issues in both the suits. Identical issue nos. 8 and 10 were framed to the following effect:

(viii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is undervalued?

(x) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?

6. Learned trial court by impugned order dated 23.04.2016 recorded the findings against the plaintiff / petitioner and has held that the suits filed by the plaintiff is under valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Feeling aggrieved against the same, aforementioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land in dispute is an agricultural land. The plaintiff is not party to the sale deed, therefore, the learned trial court has committed illegality in deciding the issues against the plaintiff and in directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on market value. He would further submit that since the land in dispute is an agricultural land, therefore, the petitioners are obliged to pay the court fee on the revenue payable as fixed by the State Government in view of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act.

8. Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is excerpted here-in-below for convenience:

"[For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees. -7(iv-A) In suit for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value :

(1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or the instrument, according to the value of the subject-matter; and

(2) where he or his predecessor-in-title was not a party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be-

if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or the instrument executed, and if only a party of the decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount or value of the property to which such part relates.

Explanation. -The value of the property for the purpose of this sub-section shal