IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA CIVIL REVISION No. 828 of 2024 PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus SARITA ARORA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Rohit Bansal - Advocate for applicants.

Mr. J.P. Mishra - Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.

6 / State.

Reserved on : 9/10/2025 Pronounced on: 16/10/2025 ORDER This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 1/8/2024 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashoknagar in RCSA No. 131/2018 by which it has been held that plaintiff should have paid the fixed court-fee of Rs. 1740/-, whereas merely a court fee of Rs. 720/- has been paid. Therefore, plaintiff was called upon the pay the deficit court-fee.

2. Present civil revision has been filed by defendants who had claimed that the ad valorem court-fee should have been paid by plaintiff.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present civil revision, in short, Signature Not Verified are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title that she has one-third share in the property, for permanent injunction, as well as for partition. It is the case of plaintiff that Hemraj Arora was the grandfather of plaintiff, who died in the year 1980. Shanti Devi, who was the widow of Hemraj Arora, also expired on 6/11/2004. Hemraj Arora and Shanti Devi were survived by one son and two daughters, namely Sant Kumar, Sunita - defendant No. 3, and Santosh Devi - defendant No. 4. The father of plaintiff, namely Sant Kumar Arora, expired on 22/11/2003. Sant Kumar Arora had three children, namely Prem Kumar - defendant No. 1, Satish Kumar - defendant No. 2, and plaintiff. Apart from three children, Sant Kumar had no other legal representative. Plaintiff has one-third share in the property. Defendants No. 1 and 2 got their names mutated in the revenue records in a clandestine manner, and sold eastern side of the house, i.e., 732 square feet to defendant No. 6 by a registered sale deed dated 29/3/2023 for a consideration of Rs. 21,65,000/-, and the western side of the house was sold to Dinesh Batra by registered sale deed dated 31/3/2023 for a consideration of Rs. 21,54,000/-. It was claimed that the sale deeds are null and void because plaintiff also had a share in the property, and property has not been partitioned so far. The signatures of plaintiff were obtained on the sale deeds on the ground that it is meant for partition. Since plaintiff was not aware of the legal niceties, therefore, her signatures were obtained fraudulently on the registered sale deeds. When the plaintiff came to know about the registration of sale deeds, she obtained the copies and then found that forged sale deeds have been executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favor of defendants No. 5 Signature Not Verified and 6.

4. Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC pleading inter alia that since plaintiff is also the executant of sale deeds, therefore, she is required to pay the ad valorem court fee.

5. By the impugned order, it has been held that ad valorem court fee is not payable, and plaintiff is only required to pay Rs. 1740/-, whereas she has paid only Rs. 720/-, and accordingly, plaintiff has been called upon to pay the remaining deficit court fees.

6. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that since plaintiff is the executant of the sale deeds, and has sought cancellation of sale deeds, therefore, she is required to pay the ad valorem court fee.

7. Heard learned counsel for applicants.

8. The sale deed executed by Prem Kumar Arora and Satish Kumar Arora in favor of Mukesh Kumar Batra has been placed on record at page 39 of the civil revision. From this sale deed, it is clear that the sale deed was executed by Prem Kumar Arora and Satish Kumar Arora in favor of Mukesh Kumar Batra, and plaintiff had signed as a consenter. Sim