The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner seeking a declaration that a sale deed is void and inoperative needs to pay ad valorem court fees based on the Supreme Court judgment in Suhrid Singh.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Annexure P/2). The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. (Annexure P/6) contending that the plaintiff has sought a declaration that sale deed dated 21.07.2008 be declared as nullity and inoperative and has paid only Rs. 2,000/- as court fees. The plaintiff is signatory to the sale deed and therefore, he need to pay ad valorem court fees. Parties were heard on this application. The court below by order dated 19.09.2013 partly allowed the said application and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fees as per value of the sale deed. This order is called in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Shri K.S. Tomar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the sale deed is a void document. It is urged that where a person sought the relief for avoiding the instrument in which he is a party and signed by him, said document is void ab initio and he is not bound by said document. Ad valorem court fees is not required to be paid in those cases. Shri Tomar submits that in absence of full payment of consideration, sale deed is a void document in the eyes of law. He relied on Santosh Chandra & Others Vs. Gyan Sunder Bai and Others, 1970 MPLJ 363 and full Bench judgment of this court reported in Sunil S/O Dev Kumar Radhelia and Others Vs. Awadh Narayan and Others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 431. The reliance is also placed on Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S. Prakash and others, 2008 (15) SCC 673. Learned senior counsel submits that in subsequent Division Bench Judgment reported in Ambika Prasad Vs. Shri Ram Shiromani @ Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi & Another, ILR 2011 MP 154. The judgment reported in Santosh Chandra (Supra) was not considered and therefore, the Judgment of Ambika Prasad (supra) is distinguishable. In addition, it is urged that the judgment of Sunil Radhelia (supra) delivered by full Bench is not properly considered by the Division Bench in Ambika Prasad (supra). In nutshell, it is urged that since the sale deed is a void document, no court fees is payable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. Per Contra, Shri K.N. Gupta and Shri U.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order. They relied on Division Bench judgment in Ambika Prasad (Supra) which is followed in Dinesh Kumar and Another Vs. Suman Choukse and Others, WP No. 11223 of 2013.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for following relief in the plaint :-

6. A plain reading of the relief clause makes it crystal clear that the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that sale deed be declared as void and inoperative. The bone of contention is based on full bench judgment delivered in Sunil Radhelia (Supra). No doubt, in the said case the first question was framed as under:-

1. Whether ad valorem court fees is not payment when the plaintiff makes an allegation on instrument is void and hence not binding upon him/them?

7. It is also true that the said question was answered by holding that ad valorem court fees is not payable when the plaintiff makes an allegation that instrument is void and hence not binding upon him. It is apt to mention that in the said case the plaintiff came up with the case that the document is a forged document and it does not bear his signature and he is not party to the sale deed. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff is party to the sale deed. In Full Bench judgment in Sunil Radhelia (Supra) the Court considered earlier judgment of Santosh Chandra (Supra). Thereafter, Division Bench in Ambika Prasad (Supra) considered the judgment of Sunil Radhelia (supra). The Division Bench noticed the judgment of Supreme Court holding the field i.e. Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 112. In para 8 & 9 the Division Bench opined as under :-

8. Section 7(iv)(c)