BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. \-U /2011 si"B'9 BSHCh , .APPLICANTS ^DEFENDANT N0.1 T03 ^' /y ...•••'B>:--'....-" 3, ^' Shri Chetan Mihir, S/o. Late Jai Krishna, aged about 65 years, Caste- Bhuliya, Shri Kairu Mihir, S/o. Shri Chetan Mihir, aged about 42 years, Caste- Bhuliya, Present Occupation- Carpenter, Both R/o. Village-Banharpali, Pump House Jhopadipara, Post Ib Termal Power Station, P.S. Banharpali, Block- Lakhanpur, Dist. Jharsugda (Orissa) Amitesh Kumar Pandey, S/o. Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, aged aboutlO years, Minor- Through: Natural Guardian, Father - Anand Kumar Pandey, s/o. Deenanath Pandey, aged about 50 years, Caste-Brahman, R/o. Khukhari, Tahsil-Rajpur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS Chhinu Mihir, S/o. Chetan Mihir, Caste-Bhuliya (Hindu), aged about 45 years, Occupation-Agriculture, R/o. Khukhari, Tahsil-Rajpur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.), At present Belpahad, District Jharsugda (Orissa) PLAINTIFF The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Sarguja (C.G.) DEFENDANTNQ.4 C IV 1 L REVI S ION U/S."11 5 OF THE CODE Q F C IVIL PROCEDURE NON-APPLICANTS :1 .1-^: .' _ . t: .<•• '' :^;' ...'.^z.' ' > t.i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 126/2011 APPLICANTS Defendants No. 1 to 3 NON-APPLICANTS Shri Chetan Mihir and others Versus Chhinu Mihir and another CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE S.B. : HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri A.K.Prasad, counsel for the applicants. ORAL ORDER (08-11-2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2010 whereby and whereunder applicants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been dismissed. 3. Respondent No.l/plaintiff seeking declaration of his l/3rd share in the suit land bearing Kh.No.321/3, 324/2, 411/2, 413/2 and 419/2 total area 0.708 hectares and its possession filed a Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No. 9-A/2010. As per plaintiff, the suit property is ancestral property, the same has been sold by the applicants illegally, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.l in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding upon him. ^?^^\'-. €;r^ &Sfe1 4) The suit was valued at Rs.300/- for the relief of declaration and at Rs. 100/- for fhe relief of possession for the purpose of court fees and valuation and accordingly court fees has been paid. 5) Applicants/defendants sought rejection of the plaint by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. inter alia on the ground: suit has not been valued in accordance with valuation of sale deed in question and proper court fees has not been paid. 6) The trial Court vide order impugned dismissed the above application. Hence, this revision. 7) I have heard Shri A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned. 8) The law is well settled, if a party who is executant of a sale deed wants to avoid it, then he has to pay ad valorem court fees as per the valuation of the sale deed; if he is not executant of the sale deed and is also in possession of the suit property, he can simply file a suit for declaration by paying fbced court fees; and if he is not executant of the sale deed and also not in possession of the suit property, he has to value the suit in accordance with provisions contained in Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (henceforth 'Act of 1870?) and accordingly court fees has to be paid. 9) In the instant case, indisputably, the plaintiff was not executant of the sale deed and also not in possession of the suit property and the suit property is agricultural land. '%. '•^•r-d-^-'' ./ ..,^;' 10) As per Section 7 (v) of the Act of 1870, as applicable to State of Chhattisgarh, when land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land, the value of the suit for relief of possession would be 20 times of the land revenue or if land is not assessed to land revenue, 20 times of the land revenue worked out at the rate of Rs.2/- per acre. 11) The instant suit has been valued for the relief of declaration at Rs.300/- and fixed court fees has been paid and for the relief of possession at Rs.100/- and accordingly court fees has been paid, therefore, the value put by the plaintiff is in accordance with law. 12) In view of above, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the applicants warranting interference ofthis Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 13) The revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. -—— Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge