IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell cannot be treated at par with sale deed.

Sunita Agarwal, J.— Heard Shri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.11.1996 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur.

3. The short controversy involved in the present writ petition is as to whether original suit No.115 of 1991 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has wrongly been valued and court fee has not been properly paid in accordance with law and further court has pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed.

4. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff with two prayers. First prayer was for declaration of registered agreement to sell dated 16.5.1991 alleged to have been executed in favour of Dila Ram and others i.e. defendant/respondents on the ground that the defendants have got executed the sale deed by impostering another person as petitioner. Another prayer was for grant of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants not to get executed any sale deed on the basis of impugned agreement and further not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff by themselves or through their agents. Defendants in their written statement have raised objection that suit has been wrongly valued and court fee has not been properly paid, hence the court of Munsif Hawali, Saharanpur had no pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed. Issue No.2 was framed on the pleading of the parties as to whether suit is undervalued and court has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the original suit.

5. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur has observed in his judgment dated 13.2.1992 that suit has been properly valued and court fee has been paid in accordance with law and as per Section 7 (ivA) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

6. Further it was observed that as per Explanation to Section 7 (ivA) of the Act, the valuation of the property shall be determined as per Section 7 (v) of the Act. Admittedly disputed land is an agricultural land, therefore, the court fee at 30 times of the land revenue paid has been rightly calculated, as the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the cases upto valuation of Rs.25,000 as such issued No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and order dated 13.12.1992 .

7. Further, Civil Revision No.210 of 1992, was filed by the defendants/respondent in the court of District Judge, Saharanpur. The plaintiff/petitioner contested the revision on the ground that for the purposes of court fee, valuation of disputed property is to be seen and not the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell, whereas revisionist insist that suit has to be valued at the amount - on which the agreement in question was executed. The amount mentioned in the agreement to sell was admittedly Rs. 7 ,67,500 thus valuation of declaration/cancellation sought in the plaint ought to be Rs.7,67,500. The finding of the court below having valued the suit at 30 times of the annual land revenue payable on the land in respect of which agreement was executed is illegal. If the suit is properly valued; it goes beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. The revision was partly allowed and the revisional court had accepted the contention of the defendant that suit cannot be valued in accordance with the provision of Section 7 (ivA) of the Act.

8. The revisional court while recording the finding that by virtue of agreement to sell no right to the property has been conferred against the defendant. The suit is not for cancellation of sale deed rather it is for cancellation of agreement to sell, which does not confer any right and title in favour of the petitioner. Without execution of sale deed, defendants have not got any right to title or possession of the disputed property.

9. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to go through the provision of Section 7 (ivA) of the Act, which is reproduced below:

“For cancellation or adjudging void in