Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu Singh vs Avnish on 5 December, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.5786 OF 2022
Between:-
KALLU SINGH S/O SHRI CHIMMAN
SINGH JADON AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BY CASTE JADON R/O VILLAGE
CHACHIHA TEHSIL JAURA DISTRICT
MORENA MADHYA PRADESH
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TAJUDDIN KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. AVNISH S/O SHRI BHIKKIRAM JADON
AGED 23 YEARS, BY CASTE JADON R/O
NEW HOUSING BOARD COLONY TEHSIL
& DISTRICT MORENA MADHYA
PRADESH
2. RAJESH S/O SHRI MUKAT SINGH JADON
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
CHACHIHA AT PRESENT R/O C-657
ANAND NAGAR GWALIOR
3. RAMPRAKASH S/O RAJARAM AGED 40
YEARS, BY CASTE BRAHMAN R/O
VILLAGE BILGAON CHAUDHARI
TEHSIL JAURA DISTRICT MORENA
4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR DISTRICT
MORENA
........RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
1. That, the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 16.11.2022 may kindly be quashed as being null and Void in the interest of justice.
2. That the other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners may be granted.
By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner to properly value the suit and pay the Court fee accordingly. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since he is seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 1.12.2021 is null and void in the light of the agreement dated 6.2.2019 and since the petitioner is not a party to the sale deed dated 1.12.2021, therefore, the suit for declaration simplicitor is is maintainable and fixed Court fee is payable.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 by registered sale deed dated 7.2.2019. Thereafter an agreement was executed to the effect that after the refund of the consideration amount of Rs.6,30,000/- along with interest @ 2% within a period of five years, then the respondent No.1 shall execute a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner. However, in violation of the said agreement, the respondent No.1 has executed a sale deed dated 1.12.2021 in favour of respondent No.2. Accordingly, a 3 consequential relief has also been sought for declaring the sale deed dated 1.12.2021 as null and void and a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 6.2.2019 may also be granted and the respondent No.1 may be directed to execute a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner after taking back the consideration amount of Rs.6,30,000/- along with 2% monthly interest. Thus it is clear that apart from declaration of sale deed dated 1.12.2021 as null and void, the petitioner is also seeking specific performance of contract. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly held that ad-valorem Court fee is required to be paid.
As no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.06 17:37:55 +05'30'