[2026:RJ-JP:7071]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2792/2026 Pandit Shyobuxrai Arichwal Charitable Trust, Bagar Tehsil, District Jhunjhunu Through Trustee Vishnudatta Sharma, Age 50 Years, Son Of Late Biharilal Sharma, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Sheetla Mohalla, Bagar Tehsil, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus

1. Sunil Kumar Son Of Late Shiv Bhagwan Sharma, Resident Of Ward No.04, Sheetla Mohalla Bagar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj) Pin No. 333023

2. Sanjay Kumar Son Of Late Shiv Bhagwan Sharma, R/o Ward No.04, Sheetla Mohalla Bagar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj) Pin No. 333023

3. Sudha Devi Daughter Of Late Shivbhagwan Sharma Wife Of Omprakash Joshi, Resident Of Near Bala Ward Temple, Bhairav Bahwani Chowk,ward No. 29, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. Pin No.332311.

4. Smt. Laxmi Devi Wife Of Late Shiv Bhagwan Sharma, R/o B-2 Gautam Apartment, Gujan Road, Gidc Vapi, Near Gautam Kirana Store, Pardi Vapi, L.i. Valsad, Gujarat -

396195

5. Anil Kumar Son Of Late Shiv Bhagwan Sharma, Resident Of B-2 Gautam Apartment, Gujan Road, Gidc Vapi, Near Gautam Kirana Store, Pardi Vapi, L.i. Valsad, Gujarat -

396195

6. Shri Rajaram Sharma Son Of Late Shri Kanhaiyalal, R/o Brc Tower 4Th Floor, 18/3 Kumud Goshal Road, Kalachand High School, Kolkata, West Bengal-700057.

7. Smt. Krishna Devi Wife Of Late Shri Kirti Kumar Sharma, R/o 645 James Log Sarani West Barisha 24 Pargana, West Bengal-700063.

8. Prakash Son Of Late Kirti Kumar, Resident Of 645 James Log Sarani West Barisha 24 Pargana, West Bengal-

700063.

9. Mohammad Idrish Khan Son Of Mohammad Nizamuddin, Resident Of Ward No. 28 Mohalla Batwalan, Jhunjhunu Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

10. Deputy Registrar, Jhunjhunu Office, Jhunjhunu- 333001 ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby upon objections being raised by the Office, the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay requisite Court fees on the valuation of sale deed, which has sought to be declared as ‘null and void’ to the extent of the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner by applying section 38 (1) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and suits valuation act 1961 (herein after referred to act of 1961).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not a party to the said instrument. He further submits that as the petitioner is neither an executant nor a party to the sale deed, he is not required to seek its cancellation. As per the prayer clause of the suit, the petitioner has only sought a declaration that the sale deed be declared ‘null and void’ qua his rights.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error while directing the petitioner to pay Court Fees as payable in a suit for cancellation of an instrument under Section 38 of the act of 1961. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors; 2010 (12) SCC 112, 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 out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is n