^a.t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. S \ /2011 SoBtB Benc&' REVISIONER DEFENDANT No. 8 -^' \^"' ^^---^ ^ ag'- ,-'' o ^y RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ^Naveen Kumar Agrawal S/o Mulrlidhar Agrawal, aged about 32 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Lal Tanki Chowk, Bus Stand Road, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ashish @ Manish Rajput, S/o Late Thakur Das, aged about 20 years. 2.^- Bihari Lal S/o Late Rewachand Rajput, aged about 40 years, Occupation Business.. Both are resident of Chakradharnagar, Kaserpara, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh, (C.G.) 3.^ Daulat Ram s/o Late Rewachand Rajput, aged about1 42 years, Occupation Business, resident of ,,Beladula, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). DEFENDANTS 4< Kaushalya Devi wd/o Mohan Lal aged about 53 years, Presently resident of Refugee Colony, Tata Nagar, Jharkhand. ^ 5. Chetan Rajput, s/o Late Rewachand Rajput, aged about 48 yegu-s, Occupation - Journalism, Resident of Chakradhamaggir, Kaserpara, Tahsil SE District Raigarh (C.G.) k^' Smt. Kalpana Wd/o Kartikram Gada, aged about 46 years. J»- Surekha d/o Late Kartik Ram, aged about 13 years. 8. Navratan, s/o Late Kartikram, aged about 9 years No. 7 and 8 are minor, through the Guardina - mother Smt. Kalpana (Respondent No. 6.) 9^ Dutika d/o Late Kartikram aged about 36 years. 10,. Surekha d/o Late Kartikram, aged about 18 years. Respondent No. 6 to 10 resident <~ of village Badeatarmuda, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 1. Smt. Anju Sawai w/o Mukesh Sawai, aged about 42 years, resident of Shankarnagar, Tahsil SE District Raipur, (C.G.) ^^fsfs»s^SS^^^^^ m O! E? U! *~> f-f- o o o h—t ^^•.- ao i.o ?pi. ^ ^ ^ <T> Q .1~^ o v 5 I. 11' ^. 1 ^ i ^ s ro o ? 1 M ^ su ^ y & ff- ^ s I 5 I co <-+I, ?ps'. TOs i-n l-'-f &. 4^ ^ ^ i >y-1 '/^ 111 ^ I ^ ^ ^ ? J s1 (^ § ? 11 1 J i t X X ?• " ^ " § .» C§ Ol <T> 1 & 0~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 51 of 2011 Revisioner Defendant No. 8 Respondents Plaintiffs Naveen Kumar Agrawal VERSUS Ashish @ Manish Rajput & others (Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure) (SB: Hon'ble NS: N.K. Aearwal. J.l Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21.04.2011) 1. Legality and proprietary of order dated 11.03.2011, passed by the IIIrd CivU Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2011 is under assail in the instant revision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: non applicants filed a suit (Case No. 20-A/ll) for declaration of sale deed executed by late Mohan Lal aS void, invalid and is nbt binding on them and also for injunction and possession. 3. According to the plaintiffs, suit property is joint Hindu _ ' ; family property. Late -Mohan Lal alone has no right to alienate the same. Non-applicants valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 3000/-, for injunction at Rs. 1000/- and for possession/ confirmation of possession 20 times of land revenue i.e. Rs. 40/- and accordingly court fee is paid. 4. Applicant, by filmg application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC assailed the maintainability of the siiit mainly on the ground: the suit in-substance is for cancellation of sale deed and therefore, court fee has to be paid in accordance with value of the alleged sale deed. 5. Trial court dismissed the above application holding: proper court fee has been paid. 6. Shri ShuKla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others1 would submit: non applicants have to pay the court fee in accordance with value of the alleged sale deed but the same has not been paid, therefore the trial court has acted without jurisdiction in not dismissing the suit. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the order impugned. 8. Undisputedly, non applicants were not party to the deed. Considering Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as amended in Punjab, the Supreme Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (Supra) has observed in para 6 85 7 as under ;" "6. Where the execution of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non executanat seeks annulment df a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the * 2010 AIRSCW 3308 ^ SSs»i3fsSSs '^SP^ :3 deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed oftransfer/conveyance can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B'- two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequeritly 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a-declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have fhe deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If 'B', who is a non- executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17 (iii) ofSecond Schedule ofthe Act. But ifB', a non-executant, is not in- possession, and he , seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also to consequential grelief of possession, he has to pay an ad- valorem court- fee as provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. Section 7 (iv)(c) provides that in suits for declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court-fee' shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree wifh consequential relief is with reference to any A property, such valuation shall not be less than ^-i^fw^ttfr.^;" •"''^; :•-' ";:T\ \ .J"», the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7. 7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "coparcenery^ and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were, therefore, not justified<*in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that, therefore, court fee had to be paid on the sale consideradon mentioned in the sale deeds." 9. The Suprerae Court has held in above case, court fee is not payable on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. 10. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vinila2 has held that the question of court fee is primarily the question between the plaintiff and the State. The defendant who may believe 'and even honestly, that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revisipn against the order adjudging payinent of court fee payable on the plaint. The Cozu-f' Fee Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of nature.- AIR 1961 SC 1299 \', ';^iw^"-fr' •^ Sahu 11. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned warranting interference of this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarawal Judge