Delhi High Court
Shishpal Yadav & Ors. vs Savita Jindal And Ors. on 11 July, 2014
Author: P.K.Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% I.A. No. 17222/2010
in
CS(OS) 1521/2009
+ Date of Decision: 11th July, 2014
# SHISHPAL YADAV & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
! Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhyay and
Mr. Rajesh Chetri, Advocates
versus
$ SAVITA JINDAL AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda, Advocate
for D-1 to 3, 7, 8 and 13 to 18
Mr. Rajesh Yadav and
Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat,
Advocates for D-6, 10 & 18
AND
% I.A. Nos. 13229/2010 & 17219/2010
in
CS(OS) 1459/2010
# RAMESHWAR & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
! Through: Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate
versus
$ SAVITA JINDAL AND ORS. ..... Defendants
I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 &
I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 1 of 9
Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda, Advocate
for D-1 to 3, 7, 8 and 13 to 18
Mr. Rajesh Yadav and
Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat,
Advocates for D-6, 10 & 18
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By this common order I shall dispose of I.A. No. 17222/2010 filed by defendant no. 18 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') in CS(OS) No. 1521/2009 as also I.A. Nos. 13229/2010 & 17219/2010 filed by defendant nos. 8 and 18 respectively under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in CS(OS) No. 1459/2010 for rejection of the plaints in the both the suits which were filed by different persons, all of whom claimed to be the descendants of one Ganga Sahai who owned a big chunk of land measuring 136 bighas and 11 biswas falling in different khasras in village Rajokri and which lands were inherited by the legal heirs of Ganga Sahai after his death including the plaintiffs in these two suits. The two suits were filed by the plaintiffs that the defendants in the suits had forged title documents in their favour in respect of their ancestral lands and on the basis of those forged documents/sale deeds they were claiming themselves to have become owners. In both the suits, plaints whereof I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 2 of 9 and averments made therein are verbatim the same and the prayers made in the two suits are also similar. They have claimed a decree of declaration to the effect that various sale deeds(more than twenty) purporting to have been executed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs through one attorney were null and void and also for decrees for cancellation those sale deeds as also the power of attorneys based on which various sale deeds were executed.
2. Some of the defendants have sought rejection of the plaints in both the suits on various grounds including the one that the plaints were not valued properly for the purposes of payment of court fees inasmuch as the court fees had been paid on the basis of sale considerations shown in different sale deeds which were sought to be cancelled instead of paying court fees on the market value of the lands in dispute covered under the forged sale deeds. Another ground taken is that the civil suits in respect of declaration of the bhumidari rights, which according to the defendants the plaintiffs were indirectly claiming in these suits in the garb of suits for declaration simplicitor, in respect of the lands in suit are barred in view of the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
3. The plaintiffs have opposed these applications. As far as the objection regarding wrong valuation of the suits for the purposes of court fees is concerned the stand of the plaintiffs is that since they are I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 3 of 9 claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit lands and which claim of theirs has to be accepted as correct while considering applications under order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the plaintiffs are not supposed to pay court fees on the market value of the suit lands. It is also being claimed that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try these suits as no bhumidari rights are being sought to be established by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands and a simple declaration is being sought that the sale deeds being relied upon by the defendants for claiming ownership over the suit lands which are ancestral lands of the plaintiffs were forged and that declaration only the civil court can give and not the revenue court. Even during the course of arguments learned counsel for the plaintiffs had reiterated these points.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the two suits I am of the view that before proceeding further in these suits the plaintiffs should first be asked to value the plaints properly since at present they do not stand valued properly. It is undisputed that two suits initially were filed in the year 2009 by different persons claiming themselves to be the descendants of late Shri Ganga Sahai, who was the owner of the suit lands which after his death had become coparcenery property, as per the case of the plaintiffs. One of those suits was registered as CS(OS) No.2287/2009, "Om Prakash and Others vs. Savita Jindal & I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 4 of 9 Ors." and the other one as CS(OS) No.1521/2009, "Shishpal Yadav & Others vs. Savita Jindal & Others". In both the suits the reliefs claimed were for setting aside of the sale deeds and power of attorneys based on which the defendants, who were common in both the suits, were claiming ownership of the suit lands on the basis of the forged sale deeds and power of attorneys. Plaints in both the suits had been valued for the purposes of court fees as per the sale consideration mentioned in various sale deeds. As far as CS(OS) No.2287/2009 is concerned this Court had, at the threshold, examined the question of valuation of the plaint of that suit and on 02nd December, 2009 the following order was passed:-
"This suit has been filed by plaintiffs for cancellation of various sale deeds in respect of 136 bighas and 11 biswas of land executed from the year 1995 to 2000 on the ground that plaintiffs have 1/54th share in this land as the land was an ancestral land.
It is clear that the plaintiffs have not asked for their shares in the sale consideration and have not demanded money from the persons who on the basis of power of attorneys sold this land. Since plaintiff has asked for cancellation of sale deeds as a major relief in respect of 136 bighas and 11 biswas of land, plaintiffs are supposed to affix the court fee on the market value of the land.
Today in Delhi, even the notified price of land is more than Rs.4 lac per bigha, therefore, plaintiffs are supposed to affix court fee on the value of 136 bighas and 11 biswas of land on the basis of notified price by the government for that area.
Let court fee be affixed within four weeks. In case the court fee is not affixed, as ordered above, the suit will be liable to be dismissed. Plaintiff has drawn my attention to I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 5 of 9 CS(OS)1521 of 2009 similarly filed by other persons claiming cancellation of sale deed and has stated that in that case notice has been issued. However, a perusal of order dated 21st August, 2009 would show that the Court had not considered the issue of court fee before entertaining the suit. In my view, that the issue of court fee is very important in those cases where the people approach the courts for cancellation of sale deed after 10/12 years claiming to be a coparcenor or person of HUF family, after execution of sale deeds in favour of third parties.
List on 22nd January 2010. Copy of this order be also placed on the record of CS(OS) 1521 of 2009. Dasti."
5. However, the plaintiffs of that suit, who are now the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1459/2010, did not pay the requisite court fees as per the direction of the Court and instead sought withdrawal of their suit with liberty to file a fresh one in accordance with law relating to the suit valuation and court fees. That prayer was accepted by the Court vide order dated 19th April, 2010, which reads as under:-
"I.A. 1326-1327/2010, 15594-15595/2009 in CS(OS) No. 2287/2009 Counsel for the plaintiff has filed this application for review. There is no ground made out for review of the order.
At this stage, counsel for the plaintiffs states that since there are many owners of the different parcels of land, registration of which has been affected by a common sale deed, and if each of the owners wants to file separate suit for cancellation of same sale deed, each one of them will have to pay separate court fee, therefore, it was being contemplated that different owners of the parcels of land shall file one combined suit and therefore he be given liberty to withdraw the present suit and to join hands with other persons, who intend to challenge the sale deed.
I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 6 of 9 In view of this submission, the suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiff to join other persons, who are owners of different parcels of land, transfer of which was affected by the one and the same sale deed. However, it is made clear that in case a suit is brought for declaration of sale deed as null and void, whether by one person or collectively by all the owners, the order passed by this court on 2nd December, 2009, shall have equal force."
6. After the withdrawal of CS(OS) No.2287/2009, fresh suit, being CS(OS) No.1459/2010, was filed by the plaintiffs of that suit for the same reliefs which they had earlier also claimed in CS(OS) No.2287/2009. Once again the plaint was valued on the basis of sale considerations mentioned in different sale deeds which they wanted to be cancelled. The other suit, being CS(OS) No.1521/2009, however, remained pending. Then, applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were filed in both the suits, in which, as already noticed, one of the grounds taken for rejection of the plaints was that despite the fact that this Court had in CS(OS) No.2287/2009 directed the plaintiffs to pay the requisite court fees as per market value of the suit lands, had once again valued the plaint on the basis of sale considerations mentioned in various sale deeds, which were sought to be got cancelled from the Court. In reply to the said objection the plaintiffs have taken a plea which prima facie appears to be of contemptuous nature. In their reply they have taken the plea to the effect that "........ the plaintiffs disagree with the observations [the plaintiffs were referring to the directions of this Court in CS(OS) 2287/2009] since the said observations apply only in case where the I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 7 of 9 possession is equally sought". In my view, the plaintiffs cannot take this stand in view of the view already formed about the valuation of the plaint in such like suit and a categorical direction having already been given to them to pay the court fee as per the market value of the suit lands.
7. In view of the fact that this Court had already formed the view in CS(OS) No.2287/2009 that the plaintiffs were required to pay court fees on the market value of the suit lands and which view was not challenged in appeal, the plaintiffs cannot ask the Court now to take a different view on the ground that the earlier direction of the Court for payment of court fees on the market value of the suit lands was not correct and in accordance with law since the plaintiffs were not claiming the relief of possession of the suit lands.
8. I am, therefore, of the view that before considering other grounds taken by the defendants for the rejection of the plaint, the plaintiffs should first be asked to value the plaints in both the suits for the purposes of court fees on the basis of market value of the suit lands and pay the ad valorem court fees in compliance of the directions already given in CS(OS) No.2287/2009, which cannot be said to be no more binding on the plaintiffs.
9. The plaintiffs in both the suits are accordingly directed to file amended plaint with the amended valuation paragraph by valuing the I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 8 of 9 plaints for the purposes of court fees at the market rates prevalent at the time of institution of the suits and to pay ad valorem court fees. Let this direction be complied with first by the plaintiffs within two weeks. Both the suits and these applications, thereafter, shall be listed before the Court for further directions on 14 th August, 2014.
P.K. BHASIN, J JULY 11, 2014 I.A. No.17222/2010 in CS(OS) 1521/2009 & I.A. Nos.13229/2010 & 17219/2010 in CS(OS) 1459/2010 Page 9 of 9