Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 1757 of 2016 (M/S)

Agra Diocesan Trust Association

…….

Petitioner

Versus

Anil David and others

…….

Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 1758 of 2016 (M/S)

Agra Diocesan Trust Association

…….

Petitioner

Versus

Anil David and others

…….

Respondents

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate for

the petitioner(s).

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of aforementioned writ petitions, the

petitioner(s) seek quashing of the impugned judgment and order

dated 23.04.2016, passed by the Addl. District Judge,

Vikasnagar, Dehradun, in Suit no. 24 of 2013 as well as in Suit

no. 25 of 2013, both titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association

vs Anil David and others, whereby issue nos. 8 and 9 were

decided against the petitioner / plaintiff.

2)

Since common questions of law and facts are

involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, the

2

same are taken up together and are being decided by this

common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3)

Briefly put, facts of the case are that the petitioner

/ plaintiff filed a suit, being O.S. no. 24 of 2013, titled as Agra

Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David and others, in the

court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for

cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by

respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 3. Another suit,

being O.S. no. 25 of 2013, also titled as Agra Diocesan Trust

Association vs Anil David and others, was filed by the

petitioner / plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated

08.03.2013 executed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of

respondent no. 3. A further relief has been sought for granting

permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants

restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of

the plaintiff over the property in dispute.

4)

Defendants filed their written statements. It is

contended that the relief of cancellation of sale deed in question

has been sought, but the plaintiff has not properly valued the

suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.

5)

Learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties

framed the issues in both the suits. Identical issue nos. 8 and 10

were framed to the following effect:

(viii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is undervalued?

(x)

Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is

insufficient?

6)

Learned trial court by impugned order dated

23.04.2016 recorded the findings against the plaintiff /

petitioner and has held that the suits filed by the plaintiff is

3

under valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is

insufficient.

Feeling

aggrieved

against

the

same,

aforementioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7)

Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the land in dispute is an

agricultural land. The plaintiff is not party to the sale deed,

therefore, the learned trial court has committed illegality in

deciding the issues against the plaintiff and in directing the

plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on market value. He

would further submit that since the land in dispute is an

agricultural land, therefore, the petitioners are obliged to pay

the court fee on the revenue payable as fixed by the State

Government in view of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act.

8)

Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is

excerpted here-in-below for convenience:

“[For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and

decrees. –7(iv-A) In suit for or involving cancellation of or

adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other

property having a market value, or an instr