IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5236 of 2025 SMT RASHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS Versus MUKESH KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Akshay Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER By way of present petition, challenge is made to the order of the Trial Court dated 04.09.2025, whereby the Trial Court at the stage of scrutiny of the plaint has noted that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem court fees as per valuation of property contained in the sale deed.

2. The petitioners have filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaring the sale deed to be null and void as against the interests of the plaintiffs on the assertion that the sale consideration against the said sale deed has not been paid. It has been asserted in the said suit that a sale deed was prepared and the sale consideration was paid to the petitioners-plaintiffs by cheques or bank transfers. In this manner, total amount of Rs.75.13 lakhs was paid and the remaining amount of Rs.2.87 lakhs remained to be paid. Thereafter, the sale deed was submitted to the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur, but some persons made complaint to the said Registrar not to register the sale deed and therefore, the Registrar did not register the sale deed on account of which the petitioners had refunded the sale consideration to the defendants, but thereafter the defendants in clandestine manner managed to get the sale deed registered and in this manner, the sale deed has been registered fraudulently without payment of the recorded consideration to the petitioners.

3. The Trial Court has recorded that the petitioners are required to pay ad valorem court fees on the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that ad valorem court fees is not required to be paid, because the plaintiffs are not suing for cancellation of the sale deed, but they are suing that the sale deed be declared null and void. Since the sale deed has been procured by fraud, though it may not be forged, therefore, the petitioners are not required to pay ad valorem court fees on the basis of valuation of property contained in the sale deed.

4. Per contra, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not even in possession of the property and for this reason they have not sued for permanent injunction against interference in possession but are seeking injunction against raising construction on the suit land.

5. Upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is seen that as far back as in the year 1970 a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Santoshchandra and others vs. Smt. Gyansundarbai, 1970 MPLJ 363, held as under:-

"14. Thus, all these cases lay down the proposition that where it is necessary for a plaintiff to avoid an agreement or a decree or a liability imposed, it is necessary for him to avoid that and unless he seeks the relief of having that decree, agreement, document or liability set aside, he is not entitled to a declaration simplicitor. In such cases the question of Court fees has to be determined under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. However, where a plaintiff is not a party to such a decree, agreement, instrument or liability, and he cannot be deemed to be a representative in interest of the person who is bound by that decree, agreement, instrument or liability, he can sue for a declaration simplicitor, provided he is also in possession of the property. The matter may be different if he is not in possession of the property. In that event, the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act might be a bar to the tenability of a suit framed for the relief of declaration simplicitor. But, that would be a different aspect. All the same, if the plaintiff is not bound by that decree or agreement or liability and if he is not required to have it set aside, he can claim to pay Court fee under any