CW-8479/09-Mohammed Hanif Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. Judgment dt.15.3.10 1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8479/2009 Mohammed Hanif Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. Date of order : 15th March, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. K.C. Samdariya for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi for the respondents. ------- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2009 whereby the learned trial court while hearing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. held that the plaintiff- petitioner should deposit court fees on the basis of market value of the suit property in the present suit filed for cancellation of the sale deed which was registered at the value of Rs.90,000/- in favour of respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Samdariya drawing the attention of the Court towards Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 submitted that the value of the property shall bee deemed to be the value mentioned in the registered sale deed and particularly when the said property in question has been sold by a public body namely Rajasthan Financial CW-8479/09-Mohammed Hanif Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. Judgment dt.15.3.10 2/2 Corporation to the respondent No.3 at the sum of Rs.90,000/-, the learned court below cannot be justified in calling upon the petitioner- plaintiff to deposit the Court fees on Rs.11,00,000/- the so called market value. It is true that the petitioner-plaintiff came with the case to the learned trial court that his property worth of Rs.11 lacs has been sold away by RFC in partly sum of Rs.90,000/- but merely on that basis, the Court cannot demand Court fees on the said sum of Rs.11 lacs because the registered sale deed in question executed by a public body itself is sufficient proof of the market value of Rs.90,000/-. 3. There is considerable force in the submission of the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The Court fees at Rs.90,000/- appears to have been correctly paid in accordance with Section 38 of the aforesaid Act. 3. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 21.5.2009 is set aside. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.87 babulal/