IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5772 of 2025 DR. SHADEV MANDAL Versus RAJENDRA KUMAR PATHAK AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Amit Kumar Garg - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved of the order dated 24.7.2025 passed by the I Additional Judge to I Civil Judge Senior Division, Chhattarpur (Annexure A/5), by which the application submitted by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to pay the ad-valorum court fee for consequential relief.

2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaring the sale deed executed by petitioner/plaintiff as null and void and as not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff, as the said sale deed has been executed by committing fraud. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a fine distinction between declaration and cancellation of sale deed as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others reported in (2010) 12 Supreme Court cases 112, therefore, this Signature Not Verified petition falls in the first category where the petitioner has only sought for declaration and not the annulment of the sale deed. Therefore the petitioner is not bound to pay ad-valorum court fees.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned court below relying on the Judgment of the High Court has held that once the plaintiff is executant of the sale deed, then he is required to make payment of ad- valorum court fees. It is observed that as per Section 8 of Suit Valuation Act, the value of Suit is assessed on value fixed as per Court Fee Act except provided in Section 7 clause (v), (vi), (ix) and (x)(d) of the said Act. It is found by the Court that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaring sale deed dated 26.7.2019 and agreement dated 30.1.2018 as nullity, and also sought consequential relief of permanent injection. As such the relief of permanent injection on the declaration being consequent, the petitioner is required to make payment ad-valorum Court Fees. It is also observed that the value of the consideration which is mentioned in the sale deed is of Rs.3,15,000/-; and on Agreement to Sale, the value has been agreed as Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus the court has concluded that the value of the property adding both considerations of instruments comes to Rs.18,15,000/-.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff that the subject matter of the agreement as well as sale deed is the same. Thus, this Court finds that the court below has erred in assessing value of the subject matter, as two different considerations mentioned in two different documents cannot be added to make one valuation of the same subject matter. Either value of the Signature Not Verified consideration mentioned in the sale deed is to be accepted or that of the agreement is to be accepted. Two valuations cannot be clubbed together to make one valuation, that too, when the subject matter of both the instruments is the same. Thus, it is observed that the court below ought to have valued the suit on maximum consideration i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- of the subject matter. Accordingly the petitioner/plaintiff is required to value Suit and make payment of the ad-valorem court fees on aforesaid value.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (Supra) has held as under:-

"6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought o