NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 111 of 2023

1. Smt. Manjulata Rathore W/o Ramkrishna Rathore Aged About 48 Years R/o Gurumukh Singh Nagar, Ward No. 40, New Rajendra Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Ku. Nistha Rathore D/o Ramkrishna Rathore, Aged About 24 Years R/o Gurumukh Singh Nagar, Ward No. 40, New Rajendra Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Naivedya Rathore S/o Ramkrishna Rathore, Aged About 22 Years R/o Gurumukh Singh Nagar, Ward No. 40, New Rajendra Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Harikrishna Rathore S/o Late Kodulal Rathore, Aged About 54 Years R/o MIG 271 A, Sector-2, D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh....Respondent/plaintiff

2. Ajay Kumar Rathore S/o Late Kodulal Rathore Aged About 50 Years R/o MIG 715, Sector-2, D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh....Respondent/defendant No. 4

3. Smt. Urmila Dipavre W/o Shri Sundarlal Dipavre Aged About 64 Years R/o Quarter No. 26, Satyanand Vihar, Rampur, Nearby Vidyut Nagar, Tehsil And District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh....Respondent/defendant No. 5

4. Smt. Nirmala Rathore W/o Mahesh Chandra Rathore Aged About

61 Years R/o House No. 34, Radhavihar Extension, Kamla Nagar, Agra, Uttar Pradesh....Respondent/defendant No. 6

5. Smt. Shakuntla Rathore W/o Satish Singh Rathore, Aged About 59 Years R/o Jaiprakash Nagar, Aadhartaal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ........Respondent / Defendant No. 7

6. Smt. Anita Rathore W/o Vijay Kumar Rathore, Aged About 45 Years R/o Opposite Pani Tanki, Shankar Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh....Respondent / Defendant No. 8

7. Anil Kumar Tharwani S/o Ramesh Lal Tharwani Aged About 32 Years R/o- Katora Talab, Tehsil And District Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh And Municipal House No. 38/65, Mohalla Handipara, Mominpara, Nearby Lalita Chowk, Ward Tatyapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh....Respondent / Defendant No. 9 ---- Respondent (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Applicants Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

5/2/2024

1. This revision is filed by the applicants/defendants 1 to 3 being aggrieved by the order date 17.8.2023 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.167-A/2015, whereby, the application preferred by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of partition, possession and permanent injunction. The relief of declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of 1/7th share of the subject property and further, a declaration was sought to the effect that the sale- deed executed on 6.12.2013 by defendants 1 & 9 is not binding on the plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that though the reliefs of partition and possession have been claimed but in view of Section 7 (vi-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in short “the Act, 1870”) in the suit for partition, the computation of fees payable on such suit has been described. It is stipulated in the said clause that if the plaintiff is out of possession of the property of which he claims to be a co-parcener or co-owner, and his claim to be co- parcener or co-owner on such date is denied, his share shall be determined according to the full value of such share on the date of presentation of the plaint. However, here, the plaintiff has valued the suit property and in his share on the basis of the sale- deed, which has been executed on 6.12.2013. The value of the sale-deed was amounting to Rs.18,02,000/- and accordingly, in one share, the plaintiff has valued the suit property to the tune of Rs.2,57,428/- (1/7th of share), which was not the market value on the date of presentation of the plaint as the plaint has been filed after two years of the execution of the sale-deed i.e. on 26.11.2015. Hence, the valuation made by the plaintiff is not proper and is undervalued. He submits that the trial Court, by observing