IMPORTANT POINT
Document alleged to be a sale-deed as per plaint allegation not signed by plaintiffs and no consideration ever passed, on allegation that document forged and fabricated, such document is void.

Rohit Arya, J.—Defendant/petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 4.1.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 16A/2012 by 14th Additional District Judge, Gwalior. By the aforesaid order, defendant’s application under Order VII, Rule II, C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No.1 and thus are members of one family. They owned agricultural land ad- measuring 0.303 hectare falling in survey No. 301 in village Gudha Lashkar, Gwalior. An area of 0.177 hectare has already been sold and remaining area of 0.126 hectare is in possession of plaintiffs: whereupon, they have constructed a residential house with boundary wall. In the plaint para 2, it has been pleaded that defendant No. 1 in collusion with some persons has prepared forged documents dated 12.1.2012 in relation to the suit land and on strength thereof since have tried to dispossess the plaintiffs, instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunctions: It is submitted that none of the plaintiffs have either signed or executed the alleged sale-deed. That apart, the aforesaid forged document bears wrong description of the boundaries of the suit land. It is submitted that no sooner did the plaintiffs come to know about the aforementioned forged documents, they filed a police complaint in police station on 29.3.2012 against the defendant and the alleged witnesses to the sale-deed dated 12.1.2012 for offence under Sections 420,467,468, 471, 120B and 506 of I.P.C. and copy of the same has also been sent through registered post to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. But no action was taken instead defendant alleged to have been provided help by the local police for dispossession of the plaintiffs. With aforesaid pleadings, plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the alleged sale-deed be declared as null and void with further relief for protection of their possession by decree of permanent injunction. Suit has been accordingly valued for declaration at Rs.10 lacs and for permanent injunction at Rs. 200 and accordingly plaintiffs have paid fixed Court fees of Rs. 2,100.

Thereafter, defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the premise that plaintiffs in order to avoid sale-deed dated 12.1.2012, have not paid the ad-valorem Court fees-under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Courts Fees Act.

3. Trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application of the defendant primarily on the premise that plaintiffs have not executed the alleged sale-deed and no consideration has been passed on. Defendant has forged a document in collusion with others styling the same as sale-deed. Plaintiffs have already filed a criminal complaint against defendants in the concerned police station and copy whereof has already been sent to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. None of the plaintiff’s, is party to the alleged sale-deed. The aforesaid order has been passed relying upon a number of judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court.

4. Defendant has questioned the impugned order inter alia contending that Trial Court ought to have considered that plaintiffs in order to avoid the sale-deed dated 12.1.2012 have filed the suit seeking declaration that alleged sale-deed is null and void either plaintiffs are party to it or not, they are required to affix ad valorem Courts fees and not the fixed Court fees under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act.

5. Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act provides that suit of the nature falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act, plaintiff is required to affix the Court fees on the amount at which the value of the relief is sought. It is from this valuation, the jurisdiction of the Court is determined. Decision of Hon. Ape