Court clarified valuation and court fee standards for non-executants seeking to invalidate a deed under Article 17(iii).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI th ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4921 of 2025 GULABCHAND AND OTHERS Versus DINDAYAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri M.A. Mansoori - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mukesh Parwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (plaintiffs) have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the II Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaora, District – Ratlam in Civil Suit No.RCS A No.63/2021, whereby the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to revaluate of the suit in accordance with market value of the suit property as mentioned in gift deed.

02. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs have preferred a suit seeking declaration, partition and perpetual injunction against the respondents / defendants before the trial Court in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.1848/3 area 2.529 hectare, situated at Village Piploda, District Ratlam. A gift deed dated 23.09.2017 was executed by the petitioners'/plaintiffs predecessor in favour of defendant No.2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have claimed equal right in the suit land along with defendant no.1 and partition and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party right in the suit land until the partition takes place.

03. After service of summons, defendants moved an application under Order VII Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) stating therein that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit as per the market value of the suit property and also not paid the court fee. Accordingly, the respondents/defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.

04. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, however, the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 partially dismissed the application and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to fix the court fee as per the market value of the suit property as mentioned in the gift deed and also pay ad valorem court fee. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025, present miscellaneous petition has been filed.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the as per Section 7(iv)(c)(d) and Article 17 of Schedule – II of the Court Fees Act, 1970 , the petitioners/plaintiffs are liable to pay the ad valorem court fee. The trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion by directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the court fee as per the market value of the suit property. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs have specifically alleged in the plaint that that gift deed in question was executed by defendant No.1 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff's predecessor, therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs are not supposed the pay the court fee. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners/plaintiffs have made an allegation that the instrument is void, hence, not binding upon them. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that looking to plaint's averment as the gift deed in question is pleaded to be void, fixed court fee under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule – II of the Court Fee Act is sufficient. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Khan vs. Lal Khan & Ors. (M.P. No.3337/2022) vide its order dated 16.07.2024, while allowing the petition, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI & Ors. reported in [(2010) 12 SCC 112] held that the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit in terms of Article 17 (iii) of Schedul