Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhu Singh vs Bhagwan Das Gond (Adiwasi) on 24 August, 2022
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
Bench: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 24th OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 2606 of 2019
Between:-
PRABHU SINGH S/O SURAT SINGH GOND
(ADIWASI), AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O. VILL. RANGEER
TEH. AND DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ATUL CHOUDHARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER. )
AND
1. BHAGWAN DAS GOND (ADIWASI) S/O
GHASEETE AADIWASI R/O. VILL. JAITPUR
KACHHAYA DEVRI, DISTRICT-SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ANIL KUMAR DUBEY S/O SURESH KUMAR
DUBEY R/O VILLAGE RANGEER, TEHSIL REHLI,
DISTRICT-SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DHARMENDRA DUBEY S/O SURESH KUMAR
DUBEY R/O VILLAGE RANGEER, TEHSIL REHLI,
DISTRICT-SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
C O L L E C T O R DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIVAM HAZARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3.
SHRI S.K. MALVIYA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.4/STATE. )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 8/29/2022 5:45:06 PM 2 With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which he also made a prayer for declaring the sale deed dated 31/05/2018 null and void on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 fradulently got the sale deed executed from the petitioner by saying that he is executing a document for lease of agriculture land, as the petitioner is illiterate person and belongs to Schedule Caste Category has no knowledge of reading of the documents, on trusting respondent Nos. 2 and 3, he signed the said documents. However, in place of executing lease deed, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by misguiding and misrepresenting him got the sale deed executed from the petitioner in respect of the suit property without paying any consideration amount. When the petitioner has reported this fact to Police, police has investigated the entire matter with regard to fraud alleged to have been committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the petitioner and registered a case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(i) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. After the property was sold to respondent No.1 by committing fraud, respondent No.1, who is servant of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has filed an application under Section 165 of MPLRC before Tahsildar for granting permission to sale the suit property to one Kamal Narayan Dubey, who is close relative of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which clearly shows that because respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not purchase the property from the petitioner, they got fraudulently executed the sale deed from the petitioner in favour of their servant to grab the valuable agricultural land from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an application under Section 151 of CPC Signature Not Verified alleging that the petitioner has not affixed proper court fee. The said application Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 8/29/2022 5:45:06 PM 3 was allowed by the trial Court, vide impugned order holding that as per Section 7(4)(c) of Court Fees Act, petitioner has liable to affixed the ad-valorem court fee on the sale amount irrespective of the fact that the said document is void document. Being aggrieved aggrieved with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed gross error in directing the petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee on the sale amount by completely misreading the provision of Court Fees Act and the order passed by this Court, wherein it has been categorically held that in case of fraud, the person, who is victim of fraud, even, if he is a signatory of a deed or any registered document, he is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration amount mentioned in the deed because due to fraud, the deed itself is void document and such documents cannot be based for calculating court fee. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside of the impugned order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Vs. Awadh Narayan, 2010(4) MPLJ.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents as well as by learned Panel Lawyer have opposed the contentions canvased by learned counsel for the petitioner by supporting the impugned order and prays for rejecting the petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 4 SCC (Civ.) 585 and Ambika Prasad and others Vs. Shri Ram Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 8/29/2022 5:45:06 PM 4 Shiromani @ Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi and another, AIR 2011 MP 18.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
From the perusal of record, it appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 fradulently got the sale deed executed from the petitioner by saying that he is executing a document for lease of agriculture land, as the petitioner is illiterate person and belongs to Schedule Caste Category has no knowledge of reading of the documents, on trusting respondent Nos. 2 and 3, he signed the said documents. However, in place of executing lease deed, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by misguiding and misrepresenting him got the sale deed executed from the petitioner in respect of the suit property without paying any consideration amount. When the petitioner has reported this fact to Police, police has investigated the entire matter with regard to fraud alleged to have been committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the petitioner and registered a case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(i) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989, which clearly shows that that the said deed itself is void and therefore, it is not binding upon the petitioner.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed error in directing the petitioner to pay the ad-valorem court fees, the impugned order dated 14/01/2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar in RCSA/197/2018 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to pay the fixed court fee. The trial court is also directed to proceed further in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 8/29/2022 5:45:06 PM 5Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE skt Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 8/29/2022 5:45:06 PM