IMPORTANT POINT
Valuation of a suit involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a sale-deed of immovable property would be on market value of subject-matter of sale and not on sale consideration shown in instrument.

Manoj Misra, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5. Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 155 of 2013 as also the order dated 29.5.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.1) Additional Small Causes Judge. Varanasi in Original Suit No. 22 of 2011 by which issue No. 2 has been decided against the plaintiff-petitioner and the suit has been valued at Rs.11,13,500 with direction to the plaintiff-petitioner to suitably amend his plaint.

2. The facts relevant for deciding the instant petition are that Original Suit No. 22 of 2011 was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.). Varanasi for declaration that sale-deed dated 22.5.2010 executed by the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No. 1 be declared null and void and that information of the above be sent to the Sub-Registrar concerned. The plaint case was that the suit property originally belonged to one Lalji, whose nephew was the plaintiff; that Lalji executed a registered Will of the suit property during his lifetime in favour of the plaintiff thereby bequeathing his entire movable and immovable property to the plaintiff; that after the death of Lalji, the defendants 2 to 4 got their name fraudulently recorded in Form PA 10; and that by taking advantage of the entry, executed sale-deed dated 22.5.2010 in favour of the defendant No. 1. It was thus, claimed that the sale-deed executed by the defendants 2 to 4 was void being without authority. The suit was initially valued at the time of institution of the suit at Rs.11,13,500 that is the sale consideration. However, Court fee was paid as per Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. Thereafter, an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the valuation clause in the plaint. By the amendment application, a prayer was made that paragraph 11 of the plaint be amended so as to show that although the sale-deed is for Rs.11,35,000 but as the disputed land is subject to payment of land revenue which is Rs.24.95 per annum. Therefore, the suit is valued at thirty times the annual revenue, which comes to Rs.748.50p and which for the purpose of the suit is put at Rs.1,000 and on the said valuation. Court fee was being paid. This amendment application was allowed by order dated 9.5.2013. The defendant-respondents, however, raised an objection that the suit was undervalued, therefore, issue No.2 was framed to the effect whether the suit is undervalued.

3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner argued that the valuation of the suit property was as per the Explanation to Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides that the value of the property for the purposes of the concerned sub-section, shall be the market value which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub-sections (v), (v-A) and (v-B). It was submitted that under sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. where the subject-matter is land and where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector’s register as separately assessed with such revenue and such revenue is permanently settled—the value will be thirty times the revenue so payable, It was thus submitted that the subject-matter of the sale- deed was land assessed to land revenue, therefore, by virtue of the Explanation read with sub section (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, the valuation assigned at 30 times the land revenue was appropriate.

4. The Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.). Varanasi, although noticed the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner but relying on various judgments, took the view that the suit is to be valued under Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act on the market