The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee payment based on the provisions of Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act and the application of market value in determining the value of the property.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

By filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in civil suit no. 103 of 2012, of the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, has assailed the order passed by the said court on 31.03.2016 which was upheld by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2016.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein as plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 103 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D), Dehradun, for injunction and adjudicating that the sale deed dated 12.08.2011 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 to be null and void. The contesting respondent no. 1, being defendant no. 2, has filed written statement in the said original suit, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiff has executed power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has executed the sale deed on 12.08.2011 on the basis of power of attorney dated 14.03.2007, allegedly for valuable consideration. Respondent no. 2 has also filed a counter claim along with written statement and prayed for certain declaration. He took specific plea that the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient. Defendant no. 2, the contesting respondent herein, took a plea that valuation of the suit should be Rs. 31 lakhs and he also sought relief of the perpetual injunction. It is further borne out from the pleadings that the plaintiff has claimed that on 14.03.2007 he had executed the general power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 1 for pursue the mutation proceedings with regard to property no. 566 Rajpur Road, Dehradun. But later on when he had doubts regarding the intention of defendant no. 1 he cancelled the same by executing deed of revocation on 13.02.2012. On 14.02.2012, a notice was sent to defendant no. 1 about the revocation of power of attorney.

After appearance of the parties, on filing of the written statements, counter claim etc., defendant no. 2 filed an application before the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun, in the aforesaid suit for deciding the question of valuation and payment of court fee as a preliminary issue. This application was allowed and plaintiff was directed to value the suit at Rs. 31 lakhs and pay court fee accordingly. He being aggrieved by the said order of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dehradun. The learned District Judge, Dehradun, has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is correct, and, therefore, does not require any interference.

3. In this case, the petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for the following relief in the original suit i.e. a perpetual injunction against the defendants/ respondents. He also prayed for declaring the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 on 12.08.2011 as null and void. In this connection, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the court fee should be valued as per Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act which is quoted below:-

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits for money.

The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

…………………

…………………

………………..

For a declaratory decree with consequential relief…..(iv) In suits ……

(a) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief other than reliefs specified in subsection (iv-A) is prayed; and

………………

(iv-a) for cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decree. In suits 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) …………….

4. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that si