Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Saya Jeet v. Balle Singh @ Balram and others
Writ Petition No.593 of 2013 (Gwalior) : against order dated 4.1.2013, passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2012 by 14th Additional District Judge, Gwalior; Decided on 21.8.2014
Held : The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that sale-deed dated 12.1.2012 is a forged and fabricated document prepared in collusion with others. Even the same is not signed or executed by the plaintiff. Besides, plaintiffs have also lodged a complaint to local police station and copy of the same has also been forwarded to the concerned Superintendent of Police. Aforesaid pleadings, if juxtapositioned with the relief sought by the plaintiff on the aforesaid allegation, substantive relief claimed by the plaintiff is a mere pure and simple declaration. As such the suit is covered by Article 17(iii) of the Act.
The document alleged to be a sale-deed as per the plaint allegation is not even signed by the plaintiffs and no consideration has ever passed. On allegation that the document is forged and fabricated, as such the document in question is a misrepresentation of fraud as regard its character as well as its contents and therefore, is void document. Hence, the plaintiff is required to pay fix court-fees and not the ad valorem court-fees for the substantive relief of declaration sought. AIR 1958 SC 245, AIR 1968 SC 956 and AIR 1941 Lahore 97 referred to. 2010 Legal Eagle (M.P.) 1540 distinguished.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R.11 -- Sale-deed -- execution of deed and sign thereon -- denied by plaintiff -- suit for declaration sale-deed as forged and fabricated -- objection about non-payment ad valorem court-fees -- simple relief of declaration sought -- ad valorem court-fees not required -- fix court-fees is proper -- in rejection of application under Order 7 rule 11 by trial Court -- no error of law or jurisdiction committed. [Para 10
¼1½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7¼4½] vuqlwph 2] vuq-17¼3½ && ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl dk lank; && dc visf{kr ugha && foØ;&foys[k && foys[k dk fu”iknu vkSj ml ij gLrk{kj ls && oknh }kjk bUdkj fd;k x;k && foØ;&foy[k dwVjfpr rFkk x<+k gqvk ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, okn && lk/kkj.k ?kks”k.kk dk vuqrks”k pkgk x;k && fu;r U;k;ky; Qhl dk lank; mfpr gS && EkwY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl visf{kr ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % oknh us okn bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k gS fd foØ;&foys[k fnuakd 12-1-2012 vU;ksa ds lkFk nqjfHklaf/k ls rS;kj fd;k x;k dwVjfpr rFkk x<+k gqvk nLrkost gSA ;|fi ogh oknh }kjk gLrk{kfjr ;k fu”ikfnr ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr] oknh us LFkkuh; iqfyl Fkkuk esa f’kdk;r Hkh nkf[ky dh Fkh vkSj mldh izfrfyfi lacf/kr iqfyl v/kh{kd dks Hksth xbZ FkhA mi;qZDr vfHkopuksa] ;fn oknh }kjk mi;qZDr vfHkdFku ij pkgs x, vuqrks”k ds lkfUu/; esa j[kk tkrk gS] oknh }kjk nkok fd;k x;k lkjoku~ vuqrks”k dsoy ‘kq) rFkk lk/kkj.k ?kks”k.kk gSA bl izdkj okn vf/kfu;e ds vuqPNsn 17¼3½ esa lekfo”V gSA
nLrkost foØ;&foys[k gksuk vfHkdfFkr gS tSlk fd okni= ds vfHkdFku vuqlkj oknh }kjk gLrk{kfjr Hkh ugh gS vkSj dksbZ izfrQy ugha fn;k x;k gSA nLrkost dwVjfpr vkSj x<+k gqvk gksus ds vfHkopu ij] bl izdkj iz’uxr nLrkost blds Lo:i ds lkFk&lkFk varoZLrq ds laca/k esa diV dk nqO;Zins’ku gS vkSj blfy,] ‘kwU; nLrkost gSA blfy,] oknh ls fu;r Qhl lank; djuk visf{kr gS vkSj ?kks”k.kk dk pkgk x;k lkjoku~ vuqrks”k ds fy, ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl ughaA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 245] , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 956 rFkk , vkb vkj 1941 ykgkSj 97 fufnZ”VA 2010 yhxy bZxy ¼e-iz-½ 1540 izHksfnrA
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-7 fu-11 && foØ;&foys[k && foys[k dk fu”iknu vkSj ml ij gLrk{kj ls && oknh }kjk bUdkj fd;k x;k && foØ;&foys[k dwVjfpr rFkk x<+k gqvk ?kksf”kr djus ds fy, okn && ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lank; u djus dh vkifŸk && ?kks”k.kk dk lk/kkj.k vuqrks”k pkgk x;k && ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl visf{kr ugha && fu;r U;k;ky; Qhl mfpr gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vkns’k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu dk vkosnu [kkfjt djus ds && fof/k ;k vf/kdkfjrk dh dksbZ =qfV ugha dh xbZA ¼iSjk 10
1. Defendant/petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 4.1.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2012 by 14th Additional District Judge, Gwalior. By the aforesaid order, defendant’s application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No.1 and thus are members of one family. They owned agricultural land ad-measuring 0.303 hectare falling in survey No.301 in village Gudha Lashkar, Gwalior. An area of 0.177 hectare has already been sold and remaining area of 0.126 hectare is in possession of plaintiffs; whereupon, they have constructed a residential house with boundary wall. In the plaint para 2, it has been pleaded that defendant No.1 in collusion with some persons has prepared forged documents dated 12.1.2012 in relation to the suit land and on strength thereof since have tried to dispossess the plaintiffs, instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunctions. It is submitted that none of the plaintiffs have either signed or executed the alleged sale deed. That apart, the aforesaid forged document bears wrong description of the boundaries of the suit land. It is submitted that no sooner did the plaintiffs come to know about the aforementioned forged documents, they filed a police complaint in police station on 29.3.2012 against the defendant and the alleged witnesses to the sale-deed dated 12.1.2012 for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 of IPC and copy of the same has also been sent through registered post to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. But no action was taken instead defendant alleged to have been provided help by the local police for dispossession of the plaintiffs. With aforesaid pleadings, plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the alleged sale-deed be declared as null and void with further relief for protection of their possession by decree of permanent injunction. Suit has been accordingly valued for declaration at Rs.10 lacs and for permanent injunction at Rs.200/- and accordingly plaintiffs have paid fixed Court fees of Rs.2,100/-.
3. Thereafter, defendant filed an application under Order VII rule 11 CPC on the premise that plaintiffs in order to avoid sale-deed dated 12.1.2012 , have not paid the ad valorem court-fees under section 7(iv)(d) of the Courts-fees Act.
4. Trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application of the defendant primarily on the premise that plaintiffs have not executed the alleged sale deed and no consideration has been passed on. Defendant has forged a document in collusion with others styling the same as sale deed. Plaintiffs have already filed a criminal complaint against defendants in the concerned police station and copy whereof has already been sent to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. None of the plaintiffs, is party to the alleged sale deed. The aforesaid order has been passed relying upon a number of judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court.
5. Defendant has questioned the impugned order inter alia contending that trial Court ought to have considered that plaintiffs in order to avoid the sale deed dated 12.1.2012 have filed the suit seeking declaration that alleged sale-deed is null and void either plaintiffs are party to it or not, they are required to affix ad valorem court-fees and not the fixed court-fees under section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act.
6. Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act provides that suit of the nature falling under section 7(iv) of the Act, plaintiff is required to affix the court fees on the amount at which the value of the relief is sought. It is from this valuation, the jurisdiction of the Court is determined. Decision of Hon’ble apex Court in the matter of S.Rm.A
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
