1. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2017 by which the learned trial Court has directed to him to pay the ad valorem court fees on the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 7.5.2016.

2. The plaintiff files the suit for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, Plot No. 149 (New No. 165) of Gulmarg Bag Nagar, Ujjain (hereinafter referred as “suit land”) was purchased by his father Late Shivnarayan Parashar from Diamond Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadi, Ujjain by registered sale deed dated 24.4.1994. He had expired on 17.8.2010 and after his death the plaintiff, his sister Monika, Megha and mother Smt. Prakash have become joint owner of the said plot.

3. On 30.5.2016, for the first time, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have got executed the sale deed dated 7.5.2016 of the said plot in their name. The so called sale deed got executed by impersonating his father who had already expired on 17.8.2010. Hence, the petitioner filed suit seeking relief of declaration that he is owner and in possession of the suit land as the sale deed was executed between defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 and 3 dated 7.5.2016 is a forged and illegal being forged and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought relief of permanent injunction.

4. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. At the time of registration of the plaint. Learned trial Court has observed that the sale deed dated 7.5.2016 was executed by Late Shivnarayan Parashar i.e. the father of the plaintiff and being a son, the sale deed is binding on plaintiff, therefore, he is required to pay the ad valorem Court fees no the value of property mentioned in the sale deed. Accordingly, the Court has directed the plaintiff to pay the court-fees, hence, the present petition before this Court.

5. Shri Vinay Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not executant of the sale deed and also in possession. He is also seeking declaration that the sale deed is void and not binding on him as forged, therefore, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court-fees. The father of the petitioner had died on 17.8.2010 and the so called sale deed is executed in the year 2016 in the name of his father, therefore, apparently the sale deed is forged and in light of the Full Bench judgment passed in the case of Sunil v. Awadh Narayan and others, reported in 2011 (1) JLJ 71=2010(4) MPLJ 431. The plaintiff is not liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Despite service, no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Even in the plaint, the notices have not been issued to the respondents. Since, the issue of payment of court-fees is involved in this case, therefore, by order dated 11.5.2018 this court-has directed Government Advocate to address this Court on an issue on payment of court-fees.

7. Shri Rohit Mangal, learned GA for the respondent submits that the petitioner being son of Late Shivnarayan Parashar stepped into the shoe of his father, therefore, he is executant of the sale deed. Since, he is seeking relief of declaration but said relief amounts to setting aside the sale deed, hence, the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem court-fees and not the fixed amount of court-fees. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over judgement passed by the apex Court and this Court which are as under :

Israt Jahan v. Rajia Begum, reported in 2010(1) MPLJ 50, Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, Sunil v. Awadh Narayan and others, reported in 2010(4) MPLJ 431, Ambika Prasad and others v. Shri Ram Shirmani @ Chandrika, reported in 2011(3) MPLJ 184, J.Vasanthi and others v. N.Ramani Kanthammal (Dead) Represented By Legal Representatives and others, rep