The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a plaintiff is not a party to a sale deed and seeks a declaration that the sale deed be declared null and void qua him, he may not be required to pay ad valorem Court-fee.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 17-7-2012 passed by the ADJ (FT), Mungawali in Case No. 19-A72010. By the order impugned, a preliminary issue No. 4 is decided by the Court below regarding proper valuation of the suit and payment of Court-fees on it.

2. The singular question involved in this matter is whether plaintiff was to pay ad valorem Court-fee and whether the order passed by the Court low directing otherwise is bad in law. It is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff was not executant/party to the sale deed and a relief is prayed by the plaintiff to declare the sale deed dated 29-5-2010 between defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 5 to 9 as void and ineffective qua the plaintiff. In the aforesaid Actual background, it is to be decided as to whether plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court-fee.

3. Shri Santosh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention relied on Santosh Chandra and others Vs. Cyan Sunder Bai and others, 1970 JLJ 290 (FB), Manzoor Ahmed Vs. Jaggi Bai and others, 2009(4) M.P.H.T. 347 (DB) = 2009 (4) MPLJ 182, Sunil Vs. Awadh Narayan and others, 2010(4) M.P.H.T. 477 (FB) = 2010 (4) MPLJ 431 (FB) and Israt Jahan Vs. Rajia Begum and others, 2010(1) M.P.H.T. 338 (DB) = 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 (DB). He submits that in the light of the aforesaid judgments and relevant provision of the Court-fees Act, the Court below has erred in deciding the issue aforesaid in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Shri B.S. Bhadoria, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, supported the stand of the petitioners. He submits that initial plaint was subsequently amended thereby praying for a consequential relief, and therefore, ad valorem Court-fee was required to be paid. He further submits that amended relief whereby it is prayed that the sale deed, dated 29-5-2010 be declared null and void and ineffective qua plaintiff amounts to seeking quashment of the sale deed in question, and therefore, ad valorem Court-fee is required to be paid.

5. Per contra, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. I/plaintiff, submits that initially the suit was filed with the prayer that plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land. However, later on, an amendment was incorporated whereby it is prayed that sale deed dated 29-5-2010 entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 5 to 9 be declared invalid and ineffective qua the plaintiff. He submits that there is a world of difference where a prayer is made for setting aside a sale deed by the executant of the said sale deed or a party to a sale deed and where it is by a person who is not a party to the sale deed but prays for declaring that it is not binding on him. He relied on Santosh Chandra (supra) and Ambaram Vs. Smt. Pramilabai and others, 1997 (1) JLJ 136.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The pivotal question is that when admittedly the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed; whether relief claimed by him brings his case liable for payment of ad valorem Court-fee ?

8. In Santosh Chandra (supra), the Full Bench of this Court opined as under:-

"But, however, where a plaintiff is not a party to such a decree, agreement, instrument or liability and he cannot be deemed to be a representative in interest of the person who is bound by that decree, agreement, instrument or liability, he can sue for a declaration simpliciter, provided he is also in possession of the property. The matter may be different if he is not in possession of the property. In that event, the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act might be a bar to the tenability of a suit framed for the relief of declaration simpliciter. But that would be a different aspect. All the same, if the plaintiff is not bound by that decree or agreement or liability and if he is not required to have it set aside, he can claim to pay Court-fees under any of the sub-clauses of Arti