Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Denying the averments in the plaint, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement, stating that the Plaintiff has sold the Properties in Item No. 2 - S. No. 55/3B under a Sale Deed dated 23.08.1995 for Rs. 27,500/-. Item No. 2 was sold for the marriage expenses of the Plaintiff's Daughter - Jayanthi. Plaintiff has received the Sale Consideration of Rs. 27,500/-. Later, Item No. 2 was resold to the Fourth Defendant - Jayanthi and she is in possession of Item No. 2. Likewise, Item Nos.3 and 4 - S. No. 55/4C and 339/13A were also sold for valid consideration under Sale Deed dated 05.06.1995 and 24.01.1999. All the Sale Deeds executed for valid consideration are valid and binding on the Plaintiff. The prayer seeking for declaration that the Sale Deeds are invalid amounts to cancellation of the Sale Deeds. Hence, the Court Fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Act is not correct. The Court Fee ought to have been paid under Section 40 of the Act.

5. The Application was resisted by the Plaintiff contending that the Sale Deeds were obtained from him under fraud and hence, the Suit has been filed for declaration that the Sale Deeds are not binding on the Plaintiff. Since the Suit is not filed for cancellation of the Sale Deeds, the Defendants cannot insist the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act.

6. Upon consideration of the averments in the Petition and in the Counter Statement, the learned District Munsif has found that the Sale Deeds have been executed by the Plaintiff himself and prima facie the Sale Deeds are binding on the Executant. Pointing out that the relief sought for - that the Sale Deeds are invalid amounts to seeking for cancellation of the Sale Deeds, learned District Munsif held that the Court Fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Act is wrong and the lower Court directed the Plaintiff to pay necessary Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act.

8. Refuting the averments, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the case of the Plaintiff is only on the basis of mis-representation and that the prayer of Declaration amounts to cancellation of the Sale Deeds. It is further submitted that when both the documents are executed by the Plaintiff himself, the prayer seeking for Declaration that the Sale Deeds are invalid amounts to cancellation of the Sale Deeds and the lower court has rightly directed the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act. It is further submitted that when it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the Sale Deeds are forged documents, the Plaintiff cannot ignore the same and seek for declaratory relief that the Sale Deeds are invalid. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the decision reported in Sathappa Chettiar, In Re (1954 II M.L.J. 400) and In Re, Thirupathiammal (A.I.R. 1956 MADRAS 179).

9. Upon consideration of the submissions by both parties, pleadings and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision:

(i) Whether in the Suit filed for Declaration that the Sale Deeds are invalid, Court Fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Act is incorrect?

(ii) Whether the impugned order directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act suffers from any infirmity warranting interference?

10. The Sale Deeds are executed by the Plaintiff along with others as noted below:-