The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Berasia, District Bhopal, M.P. in Civil Suit No.239 - A / 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff contends that a suit has been filed by the Petitioner / plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession before the trial Court. In the prayer, the relief which is claimed by the petitioner is to the effect that a sale deed dated 10.12.2018 executed by the father of the Petitioner / plaintiff be declared as and void. The Petitioner / plaintiff has further prayed for possession of the property in question. The learned counsel contend that during pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the defendant under O.7, R.11 of the CPC and has prayed that though this suit is valued at Rs.22,55,000/-, ad valorem Court Fees in terms of S.7 (iv) (c) of this contract has not been paid and accordingly, the dismissal of Plaint was sought. The said application was opposed by the present petitioner / plaintiff, but the Court below has allowed this application vide impugned order dated 30.04.2022.

3. Learned counsel contend that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity in as much as the trial Court was required to ascertain as to whether in the suit, the prayer was for cancellation of sale deed or declaring the sale deed to be and void.

4. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for declaration of the sale deed as and void and therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Suhreed Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807 , the order impugned is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Radhelia 2010 (4) M.P.H.T. 477 : (AIROnLine 2010 MP 12) and it is contended that the plaintiff being non executant of the sale deed was not required to pay the ad valorem Court Fees in terms of the provisions of the S.7 (iv) (c) of the Stamp Act. The learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohanlal v. Kaji Vakiluddin reported in 2009 (1) M.P.H.T. 221 : (AIR 2009 (NOC) 948 (MP)) wherein, this Court has considered the amended provisions of Art.1 - A of Schedule 1 of Court Fees (M.P. Amendment) Act (6) of 2008, and this Court has held that the upper ceiling limit of Court fees is Rs.1,50,000/- where, the value of the subject matter, exceeds Rs.10 lacs and therefore, the liability could not have been fastened upon the petitioner to pay the Court Fees to the tune of Rs.6,84,000/-. Thus, submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submit that the trial Court has passed an order which is just and appropriate, having been passed taking into consideration, the averments made in the application. The trial Court has considered the relief prayed for by the petitioner and the plaintiff / petitioner has prayed for relief of declaration of sale deed to be and void, The trial Court rightly concluded that ad valorem Court Fees in terms of S.7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act , 1870 was required to be paid. It is further contended by the counsel that the plaintiff / petitioner are claiming that they have derived the title from execution of sale - deed and therefore the plaintiff cannot escape from clutches of S.7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act , 1870. The learned counsel furt