Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Rashida Begum vs Mukesh Kumar Jain on 16 December, 2025
1 MP-5236-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/18/2025 1:00:32 PM 2 MP-5236-2025 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/18/2025 1:00:32 PM 3 MP-5236-2025 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 of the clauses of Article 17, Schedule II of the Court Fee Act."
6. Thereafter, the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"7. 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 nonest, 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 not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as nonbinding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If A, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/18/2025 1:00:32 PM 4 MP-5236-2025 relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act."
7. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on various judgments of Division Bench of this Court so also of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others vs. Awadh Narayan an others 2010(4) MPHT 477. However, the said judgments are of no benefit to the present petitioners, because in none of these judgments, the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) has been considered.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Trial Court, because the petitioners are undisputedly parities to the sale deed and they do not dispute that they have not signed the sale deed and their only grievance is non-payment of consideration and the sale deed having been executed after return of consideration.
9. Resultantly, this Court declines interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Petition fails and is dismissed. Petitioners may comply the order of the Trial Court within 30 days from today.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/18/2025 1:00:32 PM