In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi C.O. No. 2319 of 2019 With CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 9795 of 2019)

Miss Natasha Sarkar & Another Vs Smt. Simla Singh & Others For The Petitioners : Mr. Ayanava Bhattacharya, Adv.

: Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.

: Ms. Sofia Nesar, Adv.

: Mr. Sankha Subhra Chaky, Adv.

For The Opposite Party No. 1 to 4 : Mr., Achyut Basu, Adv.

: Ms. Punam Basu, Adv.

: Ms. Pritha Biswas, Adv.

: Mr. Amritansu Sengupta, Adv.

Heard On : January 17, 2025 Judgment On : January 31, 2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The instant revisional application is in assailment of an order dated May 27, 2019 passed by the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Midnapur, in Title Suit No. 52 of 2017.

2. By the impugned order learned trial court rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 7 & 8 seeking rejection of the plaint filed by Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs on the ground of non-maintainability of the Title Suit for undervaluation and non-payment of ad-valorem court fee.

3. The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a suit for partition against Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the suit being Title Suit No. 52 of 2017. In the said suit, the plaintiffs therein claimed to be legal heirs of the original owner of the suit property together with Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 therein.

4. The present Petitioners are Defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in the said suit. The aforesaid Defendants/Petitioners purchased a portion of the suit properties by dint of tworegistered sale deeds said to be executed by the other co-sharers,i.e.Defendant nos. 1 to 6 for a .

total consideration ₹ 5352500/-.

5. The contesting Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying therein the plaintiffs to be their co-

sharers as the married daughters of the original owner.

6. Subsequently the present Petitioners being Defendant Nos. 7 & 8 in Title Suit no.52 of 2017entered appearancein the suit and filed their written statement. By the written statement filed on behalf of these petitioners, the present Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 7 & 8 raised a counterclaim in the suit praying for declaration of their right and title over the suit properties on the basis of the alleged two sale deeds said to be executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

7. On January 16, 2018, the present Petitioners as defendant nos. 7 & 8 in Title Suit No. 52 of 2017 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying inter alia for direction upon the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee in terms of their prayer in the Title Suit within a specified period failing which, the learned trial court was called upon to reject the plaint in terms of the provision under Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The Plaintiff in the suit filed a written objection against such application and the learned trial court proceeded to decide the maintainability of the suit in the teeth of such application.

9. It has been submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs that they are the married daughters of original owner Bachchu Lal Shankar. The Petitioners submit that the partition suit being Title Suit no. 52 of 2017 was filed by Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 mainly challenging the execution and validity of two sale deeds said to be executed by defendant nos. 1 to 6 in favour of the present Petitioners/Defendants No. 7 & 8. The plaintiffs also prayed for setting aside the said two sale deeds besides praying for partition of the suit property amongst the plaintiffs as well as defendant nos. 1 to 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that unless and until the trial court decides the validity of the two deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, issue of partition cannot be decided. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the plaintiffs/Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 have not been in possession of these suit properties, they were required to pay a