Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prasad Chaturvedi (Wrongly ... vs Phool Chandra Gautam on 30 July, 2015
1 W.P. No.1488 of 2015
W.P. No. 1488 of 2015
30.07.2015
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 17.1.2015 in Civil Suit No. 21-A of 2014. By the aforesaid order, the trial court ordered that the petitioner shall pay ad volerum court fee in accordance with valuation of the sale deed.
The petitioner, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and pleaded that the sale deed dated 12.5.2008 be declared as null and void. He further pleaded that the land area 20.34 hectare situated at village Mohkamgad, tah. Majhgawan, district Satna is a property of joint family. The petitioner is a blind person. The defendant no. 1 who is close relative of the plaintiff had taken advantage of his blindness had taken the plaintiff to the Registrar office where he successfully managed to get executed the sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 on 12.5.2008.
The plaintiff further pleaded that no consideration was paid to him. He was under belief that he was taken to a hospital for treatment. A fraud was played with him. The property was joint Hindu family property and without family partition no sale deed could have been executed. The trial court framed issue no. 6 that whether the plaintiff is required to pay the ad volerum court fee or 2 W.P. No.1488 of 2015 not. The trial court observed that the cost of the land for which the sale deed was executed was mentioned as Rs. 5 lacs. The petitioner is not hundred percent blind and he was able to perform his work. He was present before the court and his statements were recorded. On the basis of aforesaid facts of the case, the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay ad volerum court fee on the basis of valuation of the sale deed. The Full Bench of this court in judgment reported in Sunil s/o Dev Kumar Radhelia and others Vs. Awadh Narayan and others reported in 2010 (4) M.P.L.J has considered the point for payment of the court fee on suit for declaration on the basis that the instrument is void and held as under :-
"14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no doubt that if plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him then ad valorem court fee is not repayable and he can claim declaration simplicitor for which court fee under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule -II would be sufficient. The question No. 1 is answered accordingly.
15. Now second question may be seen in respect of the judgment rendered in Narayan Singh (supra). In Narayan Singh, the plaintiffs had filed suit with the averment that the sale deed in 3 W.P. No.1488 of 2015 question was illegal and void. It was a forged document and also without consideration. The plaintiffs were in possession of the land, a relief for declaration was prayed and a fixed court fee was paid. The defendants moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint on the ground that though the plaintiffs had assailed the sale deed but had not paid ad valorem court fee which ought to have been paid. The trial court has rejected the application which order was assailed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the case of the plaintiffs was that the document was a forged one and it does not bear the signature of Sitaram though Sitaram was party to the sale deed.
Plaintiffs had claimed their possession over the suit land. The suit was for permanent injunction and declaration. When the document was alleged to be illegal, void and executant had not signed the document, it was not necessary for them to make payment of ad valorem court fee. The document in the plaint was shown to be void and not voidable, so ad valorem court fee was not required and a fixed court fee was found to be adequate.
The Division Bench further held that if the document as per averments made in the plaint, is pleaded to be a void document so it is not 4 W.P. No.1488 of 2015 necessary for the plaintiffs to avoid document by claiming relief to set aside and a fixed court fee under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule -II of the Court Fees Act was sufficient. In the light of the discussion, while deciding the question No. 1, we have also held so and accordingly we find that the law laid down by the Division Bench in Narayan Singh (supra) has been correctly laid down.
16. To sum up, the question referred to this Court are answered thus, :-
(1) Ad valorem court fee is not payable when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him.
(2) The decision rendered in Narayan Singh (supra) lays down the law correctly that the plaintiff a party to the instrument is not required to pay ad valorem court fee as he had made an allegation that the instrument was void on the ground that the document was forged one and it does not bear the signature of the executant.
Now matter be placed before the Division Bench for deciding the case in accordance with law."
On the basis of principle of law laid down by the Full Bench, it is clear that the plaintiff prima facie established the fact that the instrument, i.e. the sale deed is void and it was forged document 5 W.P. No.1488 of 2015 and was executed without consideration, the plaintiff is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee and in the present case, the petitioner- plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the land was of joint Hindu property there was no partition. He did not execute any sale deed neither he had received the amount mentioned in the sale deed. He is a blind person. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the plaintiff is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee on the basis of valuation of the instrument. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is hereby set aside.
No order as to costs.
( S.K. Gangele ) Judge bks