^s- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R,N6.96of2004 ^ Arjun Vs. Mangatin Bai & Others Post for pronouncement oforders on z-'2-/04/2010 SdA N.K.AganvaI Judge ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R.No.96of2004 Applicants . : 1. Arjun, son of Shri Chetan Sahu, aged about 22 years 2. Dukhibai, widow of late Chetan Sahu, aged about 58 years Both are resident of Village Katayee, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 3. Sukhbati Bai, wife of Shri Baldev Sahu, aged about 30 years, occupation-agriculturist, resident of village Bhansuli, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Versus Non-apDlicants : 1. Mangatin Bai, widow of late Chetan Sahu, aged about 65 years. 2. Mayaram, son of Kartikram, aged about 22 years, 3. Roop Singh, son of Shri Baisakhu Sahu, aged about 24 years. All are agriculturists, resident of Katayee, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 4. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : The District Collector, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Civil Revision under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Sameer Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State. ' s^ ^r ORDER (Passed on -J-L- day of April, 2010) Legality and proprietary of order dated 28.04.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/04 is under challenge in the instant revision. The facts in brief are as under: The applicants instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration of title, partition, separate possession and mense profit. According to applicants, applicant No. 1 & 3 are children of Chetan Sahu (Since deceased) and applicant No. 2. Non-applicant No. 1 is co-widow of Chetan Sahu. Chetan Sahu purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 732, area 0.50 Hectare from one Dashrath Gupta, Village, Kesla, situated in Village Katai for a consideration of Rs. 32,600/- on 21.05.1996 from the fund he received by selling ancestral property to one Raghvendra Singh vide sale-deed dated 01.02.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 84,000/-, in the name of Mangatin Bai i.e. non-applicant No. 1. After its purchase, Chetan Sahu, applicant No. 1 & 2 and non applicant No. 1 were holding the said land jointly and were in its joint possession. Chetan Sahu also constructed two room house over Abadi land area 5 dismal obtained in the name of non applicant No. 1 spending Rs. 10,000/- from family fund. Since the above property acquired from joint family fund, the above property is joint family property of applicants as well as non applicant No. 1. After death of Chetan Sahu, non applicant No. 1 sold the above property by two sale-deeds each valued Rs. 28,200/- vide registered sale-deed dated 07.12.2001 to non-applicant No. 2 & 3 ^ due to that non applicant No. 2 & 3 has dispossessed the applicants from their possession over the suit property. Since the suit property is joint family property, the non applicants have no right to sell it to non applicant No. 2 & 3 and above sale-deed is not binding upon the applicant. The applicants are entitled 7/9 share in the property. 6. The trial court held suit is under valued and returned the plaint for its proper representation to jurisdictional court. 7. There against miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed affirming the above findings ofthe trial court. Hence this revision. 8. Shri PP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that the trial court has committed an error in holding the suit under valued; as per plaint allegations it is clear that the applicants were not a party of the sale deed executed by non applicant No. 1 in favour of non applicant No. 2 & 3, and therefore, ad-valorum court fee is not payable. 9. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 supported the orders and submitted that the orders passed by both the courts below cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or patently illegal and the same deserve to be upheld. 10. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 11. A bare perusal of plaint (Annexure A/2) would reveal that the plaintiffs/applicants have filed the suit claiming following reliefs: a. Declaration oftitle, partition and separate possession. b. To declare the sale deed dated 0712.2001 executed by non applicant No. 1 in favour of non applicant No. 2 & 3 as illegal. c. Possessipn of suit property from non applicant No. 2 & 3. 12. For the purpose of declaration of title, the applicants have valued the suit at Rs. 600/-, for partition and separate possession at Rs. 31.20 (20 times of land revenue assessed) and for partition and possession of suit house at Rs. 10,000/- and the court fees has been paid accordingly. 13. It is .also clear from the plaint averments that the applicants are seeking relief of declaration to declare the said sale deeds as illegal on the ground that the non applicant No. 1 alone has no right to alienate the suit property in favour of non applicant No. 2 & 3 and the above sale deed is not binding upon them. 14. Admittedly, the applicants were not a party to the sale deed and are claiming declaration of their title claiming 7/9 share in the suit property as owner infact against the non applicant No. 1 . 15. It is settled law that a person who is not a part to a deed or a decree need not to seek its cancellation and it is sufficient for him to seek a declaration with such a deed that deed is void and ineffective and not binding on him. In such a situation, their suit would not fall under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act and no ad-valorem court fee on the value ofthe sale deed is required to be paid. 16. It is also settled law that the question of court fee can be considered only on the basis of plaint allegations and its ^ decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision ofthe suit on the merits. 17. The Supreme Court in case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and Others has observed as under: "The court in deciding the question of court-fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked for." 18. The Supreme Court in case of Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar has observed as under : "The effect of the provisions of section 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees. The computation of court-fees in suit falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court- fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sough for the purpose of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa." ' AIR 1973 SC 2384 2AIR1958SC245 .•'^' ^""^, '^ j l '^'^SES^-'' Sahu 19. 20. ^ ^ It appears that the trial court as well the first appellate court have not considered the aforesaid legal proposition of law while passing the order impugned. It also appears that the court below has failed to see that the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed illegal and relief of possession claimed against the non applicant No. 2 & 3 were not valued at all by the applicants. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 1 set aside the orders passed by both the courts below and remit the matter for decision afresh. The trial court is directed to pass the order in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases after taking into consideration every reliefs claimed by the applicants without influenced by any observation made hereinabove. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Aganval Judge