Back
IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
Brij Kishore Dube, J.
Ramsiya v. Ramkatori and others
Civil Revision No.38 of 2012 (Gwalior) : against the order of Civil Judge, Class I, Bhind, passed in Civil Suit No.3-A of 2012;
Decided on 1.10.2012.
Held : In the present case, the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that she was never told about the sale-deed which has been obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation by the defendant No.1. She was never intended to execute the sale-deed. She wanted to get pension under the Nirashrit Evam Garib Mahilayo Ke Liya Pensin Yojna. But, taking the advantage of her advanced age and disability, defendant No.1 got executed the sale-deed by obtaining her thumb impression on it by misrepresentation. No consideration was paid to her. The averments made in the plaint indicate that she has executed the alleged sale-deed by putting her thumb impression on it. Thus, the plaintiff admittedly an executant of the sale-deed dated 24.10.2011 sought to be declared as null and void. The sale-deed bears her thumb impression and the sale consideration is clearly mentioned therein. The plaintiff prayed that the sale-deed be declared as null and void by averring that it was executed by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The relief claimed implies a relief for cancellation of sale-deed. The averments made in the plaint coupled with the relief sought by the plaintiff indicate that the document is shown to be voidable, not void.
From the aforesaid discussion, settled legal position and factual matrix of the case, the impugned order as passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. The same is hereby set aside. Plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem court-fee on the valuation of the sale-deed. Trial Court shall grant reasonable time to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee before proceeding further on merits, in accordance with law. 2010(I) MPWN 87, 2010(I) MPWN 109, 2011(1) JLJ 71 and 2011(3) MPLJ 184 relied on. AIR 1958 SC 245, AIR 1973 SC 2384, AIR 1968 SC 956 and (2008)15 SCC 673 followed.
[Paras 16 & 17
U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7¼4½¼x½ && flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-7 fu-11 && fodz;&foys[k diV rFkk nqO;Zins’ku }kjk fu”ikfnr fd;k gqvk izdfFkr && vd`r rFkk ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr fd;k tkuk bZfIlr && bZfIlr vuqrks”k esa fodz;&foys[k ds jn~ndj.k ds fy;s vuqrks”k foof{kr && fodz;&foys[k dk ‘kwU;dj.kh; gksuk nf’kZr u fd ‘kwU; gksuk && fodz;&foys[k ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl visf{kr && xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh ds iwoZ oknh dks de U;k;ky; Qhl lanRr djus ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr le; nsus dk funs’kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izLrqr ekeys esa] okn esa oknh us izdFku fd;k gS fd mls dHkh fodz;&foys[k ds ckjs esa ugha crk;k x;k ftls izfroknh dz-1 }kjk diV rFkk nqO;Zins’ku dj izkIr fd;k x;kA mldk fodz;&foys[k fu”ikfnr djus dk vk’k; dHkh ugha FkkA og fujkfJr ,oa xjhc efgykvksa ds fy;s isU’ku ;kstuk ds v/khu isU’ku izkIr djuk pkgrh FkhA ijarq] mldh vf/kd vk;q rFkk fu%’kDrrk dk ykHk mBkdj] izfroknh dz- 1 us nqO;Zins’ku }kjk mlds v¡xwBs dk fu’kku yxokdj fodz;&foys[k dk fu”iknu fd;kA mls dksbZ izfrQy ugha fn;k x;kA okn esa fd, x, izdFkuksa ls minf’kZr gksrk gS fd mlus bl ij vius v¡xwBs dk fu’kku yxkdj vfHkdfFkr fodz;&foys[k dk fu”iknu fd;kA bl izdkj] oknh Lohd`r :i ls vd`r rFkk ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr fd, tkus ds fy;s bZfIlr fodz;&foys[k fnukad 24-10-2011 dh fu”iknh gSA fodz;&foys[k ij mlds v¡xwBs dk fu’kku gS rFkk fodz; izfrQy Li”V :i ls blesa mfYyf[kr gSA oknh us ;g izdFku dj fodz;&foys[k dks vd`r rFkk ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr fd, tkujs dh izkFkZuk dh fd bldk fu”iknu diV rFkk nqO;Zins’ku }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA nkok fd, x, vuqrks”k esa fodz;&foys[k ds jn~ndj.k ds fy;s vuqrks”k foof{kr gSA okn esa oknh }kjk bZfIlr vuqrks”k ds lkFk fd, x, izdFkuksa ls minf’kZr gS fd nLrkost dk ‘kwU;dj.kh; gksuk nf’kZr gS u fd ‘kwU; gksukA
iwoksZDr foospuk] LFkkfir fof/kd fLFkfr rFkk ekeys ds rkfF;d eSfVªDl ls] fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkf{kIr vkns’k ekU; ugha gSA bls] ,rn~}kjk] vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dks fodz;&foys[k ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lanRr djus dk funs’k fn;k tkrk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij vkxs dk;Zokgh djus ds iwoZ oknh dks de U;k;ky; Qhl lanRr djus ds fy;s fof/k ds vuqlkj ;qfDr;qDr le; iznku djsxkA 2010 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 87] 2010 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 109] 2011 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 71 rFkk 2011 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 184 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 245] , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2384] , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 956 rFkk ¼2008½ 15 ,l lh lh 673 vuqlfjrA
1. This civil revision under section 115 of CPC is directed by the revisionist-defendant No.1 against the impugned order dated 1.3.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Class I, Bhind in Civil Suit No.3-A/2012, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that adequate court-fee was not paid has been rejected.
2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. There is also a prayer to declare the sale-deed dated 24.10.2011 as null and void. The relief sought by the plaintiff in the plaint runs as under :
^^¼v½ Kkfir fd;k tk, fd okfn;k fookfnr Hkwfe dh HkwfeLokeh gksdj dkfct dk’r gS o rFkkdfFkr QthZ o uqekbZ’kh o;ukek fnukad 24-10-2011 o eqdkcys okfn;k fu”izHkkoh gksdj cxSj izfrQy ds QthZ o cukoVh gksus ds vk/kkj ij O;FkZ djkj fn, tkus ;ksX; gSA
¼c½ ;g fd] izfroknh dz-1 ds f[kykQ bl vk’k; dh LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk tkjh dh tk, fd og fookfnr Hkwfe ls okfn;k dks u rks csn[ky djs vkSj u fookfnr Hkwfe vU; fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls varfjr djsA
¼l½ ;g fd] U;k;ky; vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks okfn;k ds fgr esa gks izfroknh dz- 1 ls fnykbZ tkosA
¼n½ U;k; O;; fnyk;k tkosA**
3. The plaintiff has pleaded that she is bhumiswami of the land in question. Her age is 80 years. She is blind, deaf and disabled. She wanted to get pension under the Nirashrit Evam Garib Mahilayo Ke Liya Pension Yojna. She was assured by the defendant No.1 that after completing the necessary formalities, she will get pension. On his assurance, she along with defendant No.1 went to the office of Collector, Bhind whereat he got executed the sale-deed with regard to the disputed land by playing fraud and misrepresentation.She has never sold the land and the consideration of the land as mentioned in the sale-deed Rs.9,44,500/- has not been received by her and she has also not handed over the possession to the defendant No.1.
4. In the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, it was submitted by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court-fee on the consideration as mentioned in the sale-deed, i.e., Rs.9,44,500/-. Since, the proper court-fee has not been paid, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court has rejected the said application by the impugned order.
5. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has submitted that plaintiff has valued the suit for being declared the sale-deed dated 24.10.2011 as null and void as Rs.9,44,500/-, therefore, the plantiff is required to pay the ad valorem court-fee on the said valuation. It is further submitted that the alleged sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff by putting her thumb impression on it, therefore, it is necessary to seek consequential relief of cancellation of sale-deed as the plaintiff is a party to the sale-deed, thus, she was bound to make the payment of ad valorem court-fee. He has referred to the following decisions in support of his contention :
(i) Ambika Prasad and others v. Shri Ram Shiromani @ Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi and another [2011(3) MPLJ 184],
(ii) Shyamcharan Paul and another v. Roopali Promoters and Construction (M/s.) and others [2010(I) MPWN 87=2009(3) MPHT 113 (DB)], and
(iii) Israt Jahan (Smt.) v. Rajia Begum and others [2010(I) MPWN 32=2010(1) MPHT 338 (DB)].
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6/State supported the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist.
7. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 has supported the impugned order and submitted that relief of injunction was not a consequential relief, it was prayed because of settled possession of the plaintiff. Since, the alleged sale-deed is a null and void document, therefore, it is not necessaryto seek the relief of cancellation of document, therefore, ad valorem court-fee was not required to be paid on the valuation of the sale-deed. He has relied
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
