BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BU.ASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 3 / 2010 APPLICANT^ V^"'S^^ ^ .^-:^-^G^ ^-" ^.-^^ ^ CT,,<"at-"' ^y~f NON-APPLICANTS : Smt. Rubi Gupta, W/o Prafull Kumar Gupta, Caste Baniya, Aged about 29 years, R/o Near Telephone Tower, Nagri, Tehsil & District Dhamtari, C.G. (Defendant No.2) VERSUS 1. Smt. Laxmi Bai D/o Late Girdhari caste Sahu Aged about 47 Years R/0 Village Nagari Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G,) fPlaintiff) 2. Ganeshi Bai D/o Late Girdhari Sahu Aged about 49 year R/o HouseofJamuna bai Near Prayogik Shala Gandhi Udyan Village Nagari Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G,) (Defendant No.l) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Office of the Collector, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) 4. Sub Divisional '/ Officer (Revenue) Office of the Sub Divisional Officer Nagari, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G,) (Defendant No.4) 5. Tehsitdar, Tehsil Office, Nagari, Tehsil Nagri District Dhamtari (C.G,) (Defendant No.5) -* tf^ ...-.^- » REVISION UNDER SECTION 1150£CIVILPRO^eDURE^O^E fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Sam Prashant Kumar Mishra avffl Revision No. 3/2010 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Smt.RulaGupta VCTSUS Smfc Laxmi Bai and oAers ApDearance: Shri Salyendra Safau, counsel fbr Ifae applicant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. for tfae State. ORALORDER (23.06^010) The non-applicant No.l, Laxmi Bai has preferred a suit for declarationofhalfshare in the suit property aiKl also for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by the defendant No.l in fevour of tfie defendant No.2 on 20 December, 2007 is null and void. She has dso prayed for a decree ofpcrmanent injunction to restrain the defendants &om interfering with the plaintiff's possessioa over the suit \asd. (2) AflBrenteringappearance,theaCT>licant/defen<toitNo.2mowd an'^plication under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contenAng Ifaat the suit deserves to be dismissed, as it has abt been propwly valued. According to tiie applicant, the suit should have been valued as pm valuarion of the property in the sale-deed for which the declaration has been sought (3) Leamed Trid Court has dismissed applicant's applicarion under Order 7 Rule 1 1 CPC afier holding that since plaintiff is not a T 2-- party to the sale-deed, she is not required to pay Ad valoran court fees on tbe valuatioa of the land as di«slosed in the <piestioned sale-deed. (4) Lemied counsel has relied on 1994 (H) M.P. Weekly Note 253 and 1997 (I) M.P. Weekly Note 72 to contend that Ae suit is under valued and Ifae leamed .Trial Gourt shnild have allowed the applicarion under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (5) Having hesffd leamed counsel for the applicant, this court is satisfied that the order passed by tiie Trial Court does not call for an interferenee. (6) Ia a suit seeking declaration that a transaction is null and void, wherein 1he plaintiff is not a party, the plaintiff is entitied to value suit for declaration as per her choice and she is i»trequired to value the suit as per valuatioa shown m the court fees. and pay Ad valorem (7) In the matter of Laxminarayan Vs. Rannwaroop rqxirted in AIR 1957 M.P. 173, wherein it has been held tiiat in suit for declaration that alienaticm is null and void, Ad valorem court fe®sis not payable. (8) In the matter of Sri Raflinavarmaraja Vs. Smt Vinda rqwrted in AIR 1961 Su^une Cmirt 1299, it has been held that in the matters of court fee, the high cowrt may not aitertain a revisioa ) ,:B .^ applicaticm under Section 115 ofCPC attiie instemce ofdefendant in the suit. (9) Leamed Trial Court has not connnitted any ill^ality in ffisercise ofjurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out (10) The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd,/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -^-3SV^^-:-"J^"W-''