IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 4913 of 2023 RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA Versus RAMBHADRA MISHRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Atul Anand Awasthi - Senior Advocate with Ms. Renu Tiwari -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER Assailing the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Rewa (M.P.) whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the CPC has been allowed.

It is the case of the case of the petitioner that he being the son of the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit declaring the sale deeds dated 27.06.2005, 23.12.2013 and 26.07.2014 are null and void and are not affecting the title of the present petitioner and further claimed his share in the property in question. As per the plaint averments, it is the ancestral property and petitioner being a coparcener is having vested right in the property in question, therefore, father of the plaintiff has no exclusive right to transfer the property creating third party interest unless the consent from all the coparceners are taken. Thus, the sale-deed which has been executed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI defendant no.1 without taking consent from the petitioner is per se illegal and void.

A notice being issued and defendants have filed the written statements denying the claim of the plaintiff and along with the written statement they have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C. contending inter alia that as the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale- deeds, hence, the ad valorem court fees is required to be paid. Despite of the fact that the suit is valued at Rs.8,00,000/-, the petitioner is required to pay the the court fees in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 22.06.2018 has allowed the application and directed the plaintiff/petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fees in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act,1870 within a period of 7 days. The said order was put to challenge on the ground that the petitioner was not the executant of the sale deed. He has not entered into the shoes of his father, therefore, the aforesaid the ad valorem is not applicable. He is only asking his share in the property in question, as the property was an ancestral property and he is having share in the ancestral property, father could not have sold the property and created a third party interest without consent of all the coparcener of the property in question. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned trial court is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as he was not a party to the sale deed. He is not liable to the pay the ad valorem court fees and only fixed court fees in terms of under Schedule II of the Article 17 is required to be paid, which is paid by him.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that the learned trial court while considering the application has placed reliance upon the judgments wherein it is categorically held that the relief of cancellation of the sale deed has been sought when the ad valorem court fees is required to be paid in the matter. It is argued that the civil suit is pending since 2018 and till date the ad valorem court fees has not been paid. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court to substantiate his arguments.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The sole question which props up for consideration before this court is whether the petitioner is required to pay the ad valorem court fees to make his civil suit maintainable in the event when he is not the signatory of the document i.e. sale deeds. The aforesaid aspect of payment