Executants of a sale deed seeking annulment must pay ad valorem court-fees, while non-executants may seek a declaration with fixed fees, even when alleging fraud.

ORDER

By way of instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Gohad, District Bhind in Case No.29 of 2020 (RCSA) by which an application preferred by the present petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

2. Vide said application, the petitioners/defendants had sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that despite the sale deed dated 11.12.2019 having been challenged and relief of declaring it to be null and void and not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs had been sought, the Court-fees ad valorem had not been paid on the sale consideration on the said sale deed.

3. Learned Trial Court after considering the matter held that since an allegation of fraud has been levelled by the plaintiffs to the effect that on the pretext of treatment of his eyes thump impression of the original plaintiff/respondent was forcibly taken over the said sale deed which was without any consideration, therefore, the Court-fees ad valorem was not required to be paid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112, has argued that in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has specifically held that where the executant of a sale deed seeks annulment thereof, such executant has to actually seek cancellation of the sale-deed, and in such a situation, Court-fees ad valorem would be required to be paid, calculated on the amount of sale consideration shown to have been paid, in the sale deed. On the other hand, if a non- executant of a sale-deed seeks annulment thereof, she/he simply is required to file a suit seeking a declaration to that effect, on which a fixed court fee in terms of Article 17 (iii) of the 2nd Schedule to the Court Fee Act, 1870, needs to be paid, hence, the sale deed having been shown to be executed by the respondent/plaintiff himself despite of the allegation that the said sale deed was got executed by means of fraud played upon him was required to pay Court-fees ad valorem.

5. None for the respondents.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. Learned Trial Court on the basis of decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Leenmat vs. Purushottam reported in 1985 M.P.L.J. 748 had given a finding that since the declaration of sale deed dated 11.12.2019 to be null and void has been sought on the basis of committal of fraud by the defendants and not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, he is not required to pay ad valorem Court fees since the plaintiff is not seeking cancellation of the said sale deed and accordingly, had rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, in this context, the facts of judgment of Smt. Leenmat vs. Purushottam (supra) and the analogy laid thereupon is required to be seen.

8. Therein, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and title of the disputed property and had paid Court fees of Rs.30/- for the relief of declaration and the requisite Court-fees for relief of possession. The case therein contained in the plaint was that the land originally belonged to one Jagannath who died on 22.05.1981. Being a widow and daughter of the deceased Jagannath, the applicants-plaintiffs claimed to succeed to the aforesaid land alleging that Jagannath was ailing since last several years and was otherwise old, infirm and illiterate person and the non-applicant's mother acting on behalf of the applicants got a sale- deed executed regarding the suit land and house from deceased Jagannath for a sum of Rs.32,000/- after making a fraudulent representation that such a course of action was required to properly manage the property. It was further alleged that the said Jagannath was not paid any consideration