Chattisgarh High Court
Shourya Construction vs Santram Yadav on 30 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR No. 23 of 2021
• Shourya Construction Through Proprietor Kamal Kishore Gupta, Aged
About 39 Years, S/o Shri Shankar Lal Gupta, Caste - Gupta,
Residence Of Tikrapara Bilaspur Tahsil And District-Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 16).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Santram Yadav, S/o Late Bhuvan, Aged About 65 Years, Caste- Yadav,
Residence Of Village- Tifra Near Ram Temple, Tahsil And District -
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Plaintiff), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Rajkumar Yadav, S/o Bisahu Lal Aged About 45 Years (Defendant No.
1), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And
District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Munni Bai Yadav, D/o Bisahu Lal Aged About 60 Years (Defendant No.
2), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And
District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
4. Kallu Yadav, S/o Late Mahesh Aged About 40 Years (Defendant No. 3),
By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And District-
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
5. Lallu Yadav, S/o Late Mahesh Aged About 38 Years (Defendant No. 4),
By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And District-
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
6. Dhannu Yadav, S/o Late Mahesh Aged About 36 Years (Defendant No.
5), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And
District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
7. Mannu Yadav, S/o Late Mahesh Aged About 34 Years (Defendant No.
2
6), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Tahsil And
District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
8. Seeta @ Geeta Yadav, D/o Late Mahesh Aged About 42 Years
(Defendant No. 7), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra,
Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
9. Minor Arman Yadav, S/o Bisahu Aged About 11 Years Defendant No.
8), Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Namely Bisahu Yadav,
Aged About 33 Years, S/o Late Chhahura Residence Of Village - Tifra,
Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
10. Minor Ayush Yadav, Aged About 8 Years (Defendant No. 9), Minor
Through Natural Guardian Father Namely Bisahu Yadav, Aged About
33 Years, S/o Late Chhahura Residence Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur,
Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
11. Sadhram Yadav, S/o Late Panchram Aged About 40 Years (Defendant
No. 10), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur,
Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
12. Pramila Yadav, D/o Late Panchram Aged About 45 Years (Defendant
No. 11), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur,
Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
13. Rani Yadav, D/o Late Panchram Aged About 38 Years (Defendant No.
12), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil
And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
14. Indrani Yadav, D/o Late Panchram Aged About 35 Years (Defendant
No. 13), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur,
Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
15. Ravi Yadav, S/o Late Panchram Aged About 27 Years (Defendant No.
14), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil
And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
16. Lachchhan Bai Yadav, D/o Late Bhuwan Aged About 85 Years
3
(Defendant No. 15), By Caste - Yadav And Resident Of Village - Tifra,
Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
17. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 17)
---- Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State/respondent : Mr. Alok Nigam, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 30/07/2021
1. This civil revision has been brought against the impugned order dated 2.3.2021 passed in civil suit No.41-A/2021 by the Court of 6 th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Respondent No.1 is plaintiff, who has filed the civil suit against respondent No.2 to 16 and the petitioner, praying for relief of declaration against the sale-deed executed in favor of the petitioner by the defendant No.1 to 9 that the sale-deed is void abinitio. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 10, in which, the ground was raised that advalorem Court fees was required to be paid in the civil suit filed. The learned trial Court has by the impugned order rejected the application.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner, that learned trial Court has passed the erroneous order without considering the law regarding suit valuation. The civil suit has been valued at Rs.42,10,000,00/-, therefore, the payment of advalorem fees was required. Hence, it is 4 prayed that the petition be admitted and relief be granted to the petitioner.
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the documents on record.
5. Considered on the submissions. It has been pleaded in the plaint filed by respondent No.1 that the sale-deed dated 23.8.2020, that executed in favor of the petitioner/defandant No.16 is void abinitio as the defendants, who have executed the sale-deed had no title over the suit property. It is clear that the respondent No.1 was not a party to the sale-deed, therefore, there is no need for the respondent No.1/plaintiff to seek relief of cancellation of sale-deed and the prayer for relief present in the plaint is for declaration simplicitor, hence, the fixed Court fees paid by the respondent No.1 in the plaint appears to be proper. This pleading and the valuation can be challenged by the petitioner and other defendants in their written statement and if any such pleading is made in any written statement, then it shall be open for the trial Court to frame issue and decide the same in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha