IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL ON THE 2^nd OF AUGUST, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 1218 of 2019 Between:-

SMT.KUSMA DEVI W/O PAWAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILLAGE BADAPURA MAUJA USETH TEHSIL PORSA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI ANAND V. BHARADWAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)

AND

1. RAMESHWAR DAYAL AGRAWAL S/O RADHARAMAN AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEA R S , VILLAGE CHURAHA MOHALLA FATEHABAD TEHSIL FATEHABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)

2. NEERAJ SHARMA S/O SHRI RAKESH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRATAPURA THASIL FATEHABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI AJAY SINGH RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 05.02.2019 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class I, Ambah District Morena (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.10/15.

In brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed a civil suit against respondents seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard to land situated at Mauja Usetha Tahsil Porsa Khasra No. 2033 Rakwa 0.25, 2039 Rakwa 4.75, 2039/1 Rakwa 0.58, 2040, Rakwa 0.9, 2041 Rakwa 048, 2042, Rakwa 0.25, 2104, Rakwa 2.97, 2104/1, Rakwa 0.77, 2105, Rakwa 0.70, 2106, Rakwa 0.23, 2107 Rakwa 0.56, 2108 Rakwa 3.91 218/1 Rakwa 2.41, 2112, Rakwa 4.080, 2116 Rakwa 2.050 total Rakwa 25.060. The said land is in the ownership and possession of the petitioner/plaintiff. Till filing of the suit plaintiff has not executed any sale-deed regarding aforesaid land. Plaintiff went to get copy of Khasra Khatoni of disputed property to the Patwari, but Patwari did not supply the aforesaid document. Patwari informed the plaintiff that on the three sale deed executed by her, name of respondents has been mutated on the aforesaid land. Thereafter plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar and got certified copy of the forged saledeed and came to know that despite she has not executed any sale-deed, respondents by affixing her photograph and by putting forged thumb impression and signature obtained aforesaid forged sale-deed in their favour. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of respondents, she had preferred a civil suit.

In reply respondents has submitted that they had purchased the aforesaid land from petitioner/plaintiff. For getting extra money, she is denying execution of sale-deed. During pendency of civil suit, they have submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w 151 CPC averring that plaintiff is executant of the said three sale-deeds, and since suit valuation is of Rs.46 Lakhs @ 12%, plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court fees of Rs.5,52,000/- but plaintiff has paid only Rs.2100/- as court fees.

Learned court below by order dated 05.02.2019 by allowing application of respondents/defendants directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fees as per the sale consideration of sale-deed. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has preferred this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration on the ground that alleged sale-deed has not been executed by her. She also has not affixed signature and thumb impression. In these situation ad-valorem court fees is not required. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of full bench of this Court rendered in Sunil Radhelia & ors. Vs. Awadh Narayan & ors. 2010 (4) MPLJ 431, relevant Para 16 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

16. To sum up, the question referred to this Court are answered thus:-

(1) Ad valorem court-fee is not payable when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him.

(2) The decision rendered in Narayan Singh (supra) lays down the law correctly that the plaintiff a party to the instrument is not required to pay ad va