THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1641 of 2019

ORDER :

This Revision is directed against the docket order dt.26-06-2019 in O.S. S.R.No.7048 of 2019 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the suit.

3. They filed the said suit for the following reliefs:

“a) grant a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the registered deed of sale bearing document No.1335 of 2007 dated 9-3-2007 executed by the 11^th defendant in favour of 16^th defendant in respect of suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring 6753.51 sq. yds in Survey No.162 (old), Survey No.10 (new) bearing H.No.11-4-645, T.S.No.5, A.C.Guards at Mallepally village, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad and all other consequential proceedings relating to the suit schedule property are not binding upon the plaintiffs and also the suit schedule property by declaring the registered deed of sale bearing document No.1335 of 2007 dated 9-3-2007 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and over the suit schedule property.

b) by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants or other servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through them from alienating, creating 3^rd party interest and also changing the nature of the land whatsoever manner in respect of suit schedule property consisting of land admeasuring 6753.51 Sq. yds in Survey No.162 (old), Survey No.10 (new) bearing H.No.11-4-645, T.S.No.5, A.C.Guards at Mallepally village, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad, c) to award costs of the suit, and d) granting such other relief or relieves as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. They valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee at Rs.20,00,000/- and paid Court Fee of Rs.22,426/- under Section 24(d) of the Telangana State Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). They stated specifically that since they are third parties and are not parties to the deed of sale bearing Doc.No.1335 of 2007 executed by 11^th defendant in favour of 16^th defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property and since they are contending that the said document is null and void and not binding on them, they have notionally valued the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.10,000/-, on which they have paid Court Fee of Rs.786/- under the Act.

5. The Court below made the impugned endorsement dt.26-06-2019 that as per the sale deed dt.09-03-2007, the value of the property is more than Rs.84.00 crores, hence the valuation is enhanced to 10% of Rs.84,41,95,504/- i.e. the sale consideration value and the plaintiffs are directed to pay the same within 7 days.

6. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Nande Ali Mirza and others Vs. Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala and others, [2016(1) ALD 318] wherein this Court had held that if the plaintiffs are not parties to the document which they seek to be declared as null and void and not binding on them, they are not bound to seek relief of cancellation and compute the Court Fee on the market value of the land comprised therein.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners refers to prayer in the plaint, and contends that it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs/petitioners that they are not parties to the sale deed dt.09-03-2007 executed by 11^th defendant in favour of 16^th defendant, and they are only seeking declaration that the said sale deed is not binding on them by declaring it to be null and void.

9. In the above decision, this Court held that a plaintiff, who is not a party to a sale deed, is not bound to seek cancellation of it in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh, [AIR 2010 SC 2807]. It held:

“27. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are not parties to the 107 documents which they seek to be declared as null and void and not binding on them.