IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA ON THE 2^nd OF MARCH, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 928 of 2022 Between:-

BRAJBIHARI BAGHEL S/O PREETAM SINGH BAGHEL , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE SANGAI, TEH.AND DIST.SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S. K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. LOKESH AGRAWAL S/O KUNJBIHARI AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL SHASTRI WARD, BABARIYA ROAD (NEAR SUJEET HOUSE), VARAPATTHAR SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SANDHYA BAGHEL W/O ANKIT BAGHEL , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O CHARGAON, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT- SEONI, M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE OFFICE - SEONI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT- SEONI, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2022 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seoni, District Seoni in Civil Suit No.369-A/2021, whereby, the petitioner/plaintiff has been directed to pay ad-

valorem court fee on the plaint according to valuation of a registered sale deed.

It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Patwari Halka No.116, RNM Seoni Part 1, Khasra no.113/1 area 1.39 hectares on the ground that the respondent No.1 was known to the petitioner/plaintiff since long and the petitioner/plaintiff, who is Signature Not Verified SAN an agriculturist, on the pretext of marriage of his daughter in the year, 2018 Date: 2022.03.16 18:28:55 IST borrowed certain amount from the respondent No.1 in lieu of mortgage of the aforesaid land. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff took a sum of Rs.5.00 lac from the respondent No.1 on 10% interest per month and also mortgaged the aforesaid land with the respondent No.1 and also executed a mortgage deed. In the year 2020, due to covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner/plaintiff could not pay the interest on the borrowed amount to the respondent No.1. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 is trying to alienate the land and, therefore, he contacted to respondent No.1, who demanded Rs.7.50 lac from the petitioner and upon refusal, he threatened the petitioner to sale his land and informed that in place of mortgage deed, he has executed a registered sale-deed, then the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 got executed a registered sale-deed of the land in question by playing fraud and mis-representation.

During the pendency of the civil suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been filed by the respondent No.1 alleging that the suit has not been properly valued and stamped, as the value of registered sale deed is Rs. 8.50 lac and market value is Rs.15.00 lac, therefore, the suit should be dismissed being under valued. A reply was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff stating that the same is subject matter of evidence as he has alleged fraud in getting the sale deed registered, therefore, the court fee has rightly been fixed and paid. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 08.01.2022 has disposed of the application and directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee.

It is submitted that as a fraud has been alleged while executing the sale deed, therefore, in terms of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil and other vs. Avadh Narayan and others, 2010(4) MPLJ 431, the instrument is void and is not binding upon the petitioner/plaintiff and, therefore, he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the judgment passed by this Court. In such circumstances, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From a perusal of the record, it is seen that a civil suit has been filed for declaration and injunction on the basis of a document