T T 'iiT'h. •^,^^t^sS^ CD '''''• ^ "sr^ ' ^'.;v IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. T-e^ ®fl|leBench OF 2011 APPLICANT ^DEFENDANT N0.2) \\ ,...^ 6^^ ^>y^^\ >.••'' ;'^ .^'r -^ ^0-' ,.••" ^^'.z^ ^•^°/ NON- APPLICANTS fPLAINTIFF) fDEFENDANT N0.11 fDEFENDANT ^N0.31 fOEFENDANT 'N0.41 Cajeev Gupta S/o Shri R.S. Gupta, aged about- 43 years, R/o- H.No.-42 Vardhaman Nagar, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil- Distt.-Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1.. Rustam Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Baghel, aged about 16 years, Minor through natural guardian father - Vijay Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Ratan Lal Baghel, aged about 32 years, Caste- Satnami, R/o village Pendritarai, Tahsil- Dhamadha, Distt.-Durg (C.G.). Smt. Janaki Bai W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Baghel, aged about 30 years, R/o village Mudpar//M:urradih// Post- Naradha, Tahsil—Dhamadha,Distt.- Durg (C.G.). 3^ The Government of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Collector Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.). 4^ The Mineraf Officer, On behalf of the Collector Durg, Distt.-Durg (C.G.). REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shi'i Prashant Kumar Mjslura CivilRevision No. 70/2011 Rajeev Gupta Versus Rustam Kumar and others RESPONDENTS Appearance: Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Risbi Rahul Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Paael La\V)'er for the State. REVI8ION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF C'mL PROCEDURE 1908 ORAL ORDER (7.07.2011) This revision under Section 115 of CPC has been preferred by the detendant in the suit whose application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. (2) The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent iiijuiiction. According to the plaintiff, who is a minor, the detendant No.l mother has executed a sale-deed in tavour.sof detendant No.2/applicant on 6/10/2008 without seeking permission from the conipetent court under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and th&t otherwise also there is no legal necessity for alienating the propert\'. (3) A-pplicant moved the subject application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofd>£on.the ground thatthe valuation ofthe land in the sale-deed is Rs.2,20,500/-, therefore the plaintiff is required to pay Ad-valorem court fee. He would also submit that the plaint does not disclose any '•>N: ^^ cause of action for filing the present suit. The trial court has dismissed the application on the reasoning that the present suit is for declaration and permanent injunction and the plaintitY being ia possession ofthe suit land has not sought aiiy consequential relieffor delivery ofpossession, therefore, he is not required to pay ad-valorem court tee. (4) Plaintiff being a minor, has aot executed the sale-deed, though the sale-deed recites that tiie mother has signed over the sale-deed on behalfofher minor son i.e. the plaintiff. (5) The question regarding the existence of legal necessity and'or the eftect of absence of any permission by the competent court under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act would be examined by the trial court after evidence is led by both the parties. (6) It is not the case ofthe applicant that my such permission has been sought before executing the sale-deed. Thus, for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 the plaint allegations are to be seen vvherein and also from the sale-deed it would appear that the plaintiff has not signed over the sale-deed. Thus, prima facie the plaintifF is ndt a pai1y to the •sate-deed and the trial court has uot committed any error in holding that the suit land being assessed to land revenue and the plaintiff having not prayed for aiy consequential relief, the valuation made by the plaintilf is not arbitrar;.' and no case for rejectuig the suit or for ; directing the p^intiffto pay Ad-valorem court fee is made out. ••^..••^^•Si is.. ^ ^y^::^-f^^^%^ ^' "~ ''y^ '•%••;-. •ks.,..V -3- (7) Admittedly, the plaintiff is a miiior and diere is nothing on record to demonstrate that any permission has been sought from the competent court for alienating the laiid on •behalfof minor, therefore it cannot be said fhat the plaint does not disclose aiiy cause ofaction. (8) In the opinion of this court, no case for interference in the impugned order is made oufas the impugned order does not suifer from any illegality or material irregularity'in exercise ofjurisdiction. (9) In the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Smgh Vs. Randhir Singh and others 2010 (3) C.G.L.J. 252 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a non-executant who is in possession ofthe propert^'' aad sues for a declaration that the deed is nul! or void, he has to pay court fee on declaration as per tlie valuation made by liim and he need not pay Ad-valorem coiirt fee. (10) The civil revision being devoid ofsubstaiice is dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge er 1