ORDER

This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 15/11/2021 (Annexure P/5) passed by 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhopal in RCS no.614-A/2020, whereby learned court below has dismissed the application filed under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant.

2.

to oppose the petition.

3.

registered gift deed was executed on 16/07/2020 by respondent/plaintiff in favour of the defendant/petitioner-Vinod Singh with regard to plot in question, thereafter the plaintiff/respondent has instituted the suit in -

"(a) To declare that the Gift Deed dated 20/07/2020 executed in favour of the defendant is a void-abinitio, nonest and not binding on the

Plaintiff being fradulently executed by the Defendant.

(b) Issue a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his persons, agents, servants working under him from alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property situated and forming part of Khasra No. 101/4 having total area of 0.920 Hectare i.e. 2.27 Acres at Gram Hinotiya Alam, Patwari Halka No. 28, Revenue Circle No. 03, Vikaskhand Phanda, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal (MP) vide a registered Sale Deed executed on 03.07.2019.

(c) Cost of this suit also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

(d) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant under the

"

4.

by way of filing suit for declaration, plaintiff/respondent wants to get cancelled registered gift deed even without payment of requisite court fee, to which it is a party, which is not permissible under the law and even if the plaintiff/respondent has not sought relief of cancellation of the gift deed, the plaintiff/respondent has to pay ad valorem court fee on the valuation put by the plaintiff itself with regard to the declaration. Accordingly, he submits that the learned court below has wrongly held that the plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount, on the basis of which plaintiff/respondent has valued the suit.

Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

5.

record.

6.

execution of gift deed dated 16/07/2020 (Annexure P/2) is not in dispute and plaint averments show that the gift deed has been challenged on the ground that instead of executing a sale deed the defendant fraudulently got the gift deed of the suit property executed in his favour without making any payment of consideration. In the entire plaint, it is not case of the plaintiff that its partner Mr. Pradeep Sharma is an illiterate person.

7.

for the purpose of declaration at Rs.10,49,876/- but has paid court fee of Rs.500/- only. From the relief clause no. (a) also, it is clear that the plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 20/07/2020 be declared as void ab-initio, nonest and not binding on the plaintiff being fraudulently executed by the defendant.

8.

suit, the provision of section 19 of the Contract Act, 1872 is relevant to consider, which is quoted as under :

“19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.

When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, [* * *] fraud or misrepre- sentation, the agreement is contract voidable at the option of the party whose con- sent was so caused.

A party to contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.

Explanation: -If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.

Explanation: - A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to whom such fraud was practised, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a con