A.F.R

Reserved on: 07.12.2022

Delivered on: 20.12.2022

Court No. - 30

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 36 of 2017

Revisionist :- Smt. Ratni Devi Deceased And 7 Ors.

Opposite Party :- Smt. Asha Hans

Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1.

This civil revision has been filed against the

judgement and order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.6,

Meerut in Original Suit No.846 of 2014 (Smt. Ratni Devi

Vs. Smt. Asha Hans).

2.

In brief facts of the case are that revisionist, Smt.

Ratni Devi filed a suit for declaratory decree to declare

the sale deed dated 07.05.2014 null and void registered in

the office of Sub-Registrar, Mawana, District Meerut and

to send its information to the concerned Sub-Registrar.

3.

According to the plaint and the revision, Smt. Ratni

Devi (now deceased) was the owner and Bhumidhar with

transferable rights of khasra no.460 area 0.5060 hectare

and khasra no.462 area 0.4430 hectare situated in Village

Himaunpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District

Meerut. She was an old and ill lady. Her cardiac treatment

was going on. Respondent defendant is the daughter of

the revisionist-plaintiff. The plaintiff was getting

pension after death of her husband who was working in

MCD, Delhi. When for the purposes of purchasing

fertilizers she took a copy of khatauni on 19.07.2014,

she came to know that defendant had got executed a

sale deed in her favour of her land. The plaintiff

obtained a certified copy through advocate on

07.05.2014 then she came to know that it is shown that

in lieu of Rs.7,50,000/- she has sold 0.1145 hectare and

0.6707 hectare land to the defendant in which husband

of the defendant and one Anil Kumar Sharma, advocate,

Tehsil Mawana have been shown marginal witnesses.

4.

The petitioner had neither proposed to sell her

land to the defendant nor ever executed any sale deed

in her favour. On 07.05.2014 in the garb of increase of

pension she was taken by the defendant and in good

faith defendant got signed some papers telling it to be

the pension papers which she had not read over. By

playing fraud the defendant has shown the execution of

sale deed. There was no necessity of sale of property in

suit. The plaintiff neither sold the land nor obtained any

consideration.

5.

During pendency of the case the plaintiff died. Her

three sons namely Dinesh Kumar, Dev Kumar and

Anand Kumar were her heirs and she had executed sale

deed on 20.08.2014 about complete movable and

immovable property in their favour. Dev Kumar died on

18.03.2015, therefore, his heirs have been arrayed as

plaintiff. When the matter was reported to the

defendant she accepted her fault and assured to get the

2 of 14

sale deed cancelled but later on clearly refused to do

so. Hence, cause of action arose and suit had been filed.

6.

During the course of hearing on 19.04.2016, issue

no.2 regarding improper valuation of the suit and

payment of insufficient court fee, issue no.3 were

decided. So far as issue no.2 is concerned the court

assumed that the plaintiff has properly valued the suit

but about the payment of court fee the lower court held

that since the property has been valued at

Rs.7,50,000/-, and the plaintiff was party to the sale

deed, therefore, under Section 7(IV)-A of the Court Fees

Act, 1870 the plaintiff would pay ad valorem court fee

at the market value of the case property.

7.

Instead of complying with the order regarding

issue no.3, the plaintiff moved 41-Ka amendment

application, in which the plaintiff proposed to value the

suit for relief 'A' at Rs.600/- (thirty times of the annual

rent of RS. 20/-) and proposed to pay the court fees Rs.

87.50/-and for proposed relief 'B' regarding permanent

injunction valuing the growing crops at Rs. 6 lacs

proposed to pay maximum Court fee Rs. 500/-.

8.

Objection was filed by the