ORDER

Per : Justice Devnarayan Mishra Heard learned counsel for revisionists.

Learned counsel for revisionists has submitted that being plaintiffs they have filed a Civil Suit No.18A/2011 before Civil Judge, Class-II, Niwas, District-Mandla for revocation of gift deed, declaration of title, injunction and for possession of the suit land. The trial Court by passing the order, directed the revisionists/plaintiffs to correct the valuation and ordered that the Court Fee be paid on the basis of the market value of the land and the Court fee be paid ad valorem on that. They have further filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC but that was dismissed and finally the suit was also dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (3) of the CPC.

2.Learned counsel for revisionists/petitioners has submitted that the land is an agricultural land, is assessed for revenue. Land was never diverted, hence, the basis for valuation of suit shall be, revenue assessed to be paid on that land and gift deed have lost its use and the doner oneself was not the exclusive owner of the disputed land, hence, that is not binding upon the parties and no ad valorem court fee is required to be paid but the trial Court has wrongly rejected the plaint.

3.Learned Panel Lawyer for State has submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the order as on that land School was constructed and gift deed is registered, so without paying the ad valorem court fees, the suit is not maintainable, hence, the revision be dismissed.

4.Learned counsel for revisionists/petitioners has submitted that revision is maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Johra Bi and others vs. Jageshwar and others, reported in 2010(1) MPLJ 98.

5.On the point of valuation, it is material that what reliefs the plaintiff/revisionist has claimed in his suit. From the copy of the plaint, in the prayer clause, the plaintiff has sought the declaration, revocation of gift deed, declaration of title, possession, injunction and for the return of possession of the part of land where the School was constructed.

6.Thus, summerly, on that basis, the suit shall be valued as per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The land is assessed annual revenue to the Government, the valuation of the suit for possession of that land shall be on the basis of the land revenue payable at the time of the suit. It is clear that the disputed land (old No.122/2 and 124/2) was assessed for the land revenue as per Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 1960-61 and Khasrapanchshal changed Survey No.81 ad-measuring 1.95 hectare. The revenue is assessed only on the basis that this land is a part of Abadi does not matter, thus for declaration of the title, for injunction and for possession, the revenue of the land shall be basis to value the suit.

7.As per plaint averments, there is no construction at present but for the point of view of revocation of gift deed which has been attached with the revision petition, the plaintiffs are bound to the value mentioned in the deed as the plaintiffs are claiming their interest through executent of the deed i.e. Gayadeen, s/o Hardayal.

But no present value has been shown in the plaint, hence, the value shown in the gift deed i.e. Rs.50/- will be the basis and on that basis the ad valorem court fee shall be payable for revocation of the gift deed.

8.Thus, summerly, the basis for valuation of the revocation of the gift deed, the value of the land stated in the plaint i.e. will be Rs.50/- and for the declaration of title, possession, injunction, the value of suit shall be on the basis of the land revenue fixed for the disputed land.

9.In view of aforesaid, trial Court has wrongly rejected the plaint, hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 01.07.2016 is hereby quashed.

10.Plaint shall be reinstated and the trial Court shall grant reasonable time to modify the valuation of the suit and to pay the requisite court fee. Thereafter, decide the