BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION 227 NO. 39% OF 2011 wngle Eamh PETITIONERS 1. Chandrapal Shukla S / O DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 7 Barwaram Shukla, aged about 64 years, 2. Smt. Vaidhi Shukla W/o Chandrapal Shukla, aged about 56 years, 3. Manish Shukla S/O Chandrapal Shukla, aged about 27 years, 4. Umesh Shukla S/o Chandrapal Shukla, aged about 29 years, 5. Ashish Kumar Shuk1a S/o Chandrapal Shukla, aged about 24 years, 6. rSuresh Kumar Shukla S/o Chandrapal Shukla, aged about 34 years, A11 R/o Itwari Bazar, Shaheed Chowk Raigarh, Tahsi1'8a District — Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Shivkunwar W/o Kushwaram, aged about 72 years, occupation — House Wife, R/o Mastagali, Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Savitri Devi W/o Late Bharatlal Sahu, aged about 5O years, occupation -— House Wife, Fokatpara Fafadih, New Mandi Road, Raipur (C.G.) vb . Shatrughan Sahu S/ o Kushwaram Sahu, aged about 49 years, Occupation — Service, presently residing A/ 148, Basant Bihar Colony, S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, Tahsil 8r, District — Bilasupr (C.G.) . Ramlal Sahu S / o Kushwaram Sahu, aged about 47 years, occupation — > Service, R/ o Mastagali, Darogapara, Raigarh Tahsil 8a Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). . Murlidhar Sahu S/o Kushwaram Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Darogapara Mastagali, Raigarh, Tahsil 8a Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). . Smt. Basant Sahu W/o Rohit Kumar Sahu, aged about 55 years, occupation Teacher, R/o Jutmill Raigarh, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) . Smt. Santoshi Sahu W/o Khageshwar Prasad Sahu, aged about 38 years, occupation House Wife, R/o Village Dabhara, Tahsil — Dabhara, District — Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). PLAINTIFFS .Smt. Hembai Sahu W/o Late Laxman Sahu, Caste ~ Teli, R/o Beladula Kharraghat, Raigarh, Tahsil 8L Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). DEFENDANT N0. 1 . State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raigarh, Tahsil 85 Wb, / <2 b Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). DEFENDANT No.8 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. HIGH QUURT QF CHHQ‘YTIé‘vGARH AT BILA$F’UR Writ PatitiOn (227) No. 3§35 0f 261‘! PETITIONERéS Chandraoa! Shukia and others. DeAendantS No. 2 f0 ,7 Versus RES9ON§DENT$ $hévkunwar and omerg wRiT P%TIT‘§QN UMBER ART3QLE 22“LQF THE (ZGNSTWUKJN m: ¥ND1A (SB: Hon’bie Mr. MK. Aaarvml, JJ g. Presant ' Mr. SamoSh Kumar TiwarL counsel for the petiiioners. Mt Arun Sac, GA for the State/'respondent No. 9. GRAL (mam (65.07.7201 1) Heard. 1. Wamti'ffs/respondems med a suitmaimmg retief of declaratéon to the effoot that after the oiw! death of Kushwaram SahLL may are owmer of the suit tand and the sa!e deed damd $82307 is: megai, void and not binding upon them; they woo claimod reiief of oorz‘firmation of posseosaion in cago of diopossoeosaiom during pendenoy of sub; for poosoooion‘ Abovo reéief has; beerx vafueo 3i RatiOZQL and aooordmgiy court fee is paid 2. After putrmg their appearance in the case] petitionere by {Hing app‘ioation under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC raised objection regarding valuation of the euit. According to them, the retiet to deciare the sate deed as void has to be vaiued as oer the vatue oi' the sate deed ie. Rs.tQ,94,iCiO/— and accordingly the court fee is required to be paid. 3. The triai Cdurt, vide impugned order, dismieeed the above application hoiding that the piaihtiite are not a party to the eale~deed, also in poeeeesion of the suit property; are not required to get it set aeide and,'therer’ore, court tee paid under Artioie i7 Schedule ll ot'the Court Fee Act is proper, [d 4. Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned cmmsei appearing for tha petitioners, WGLUd submit : without getting sale-deed set aside the reiief of possession cannot be granted; theraforex the suit has to be vaiued as per the vaiue of sate-deed and ad vaiorem courtwfee is required to be paidi 5. i have heard counsel tor the petitionere and perused the copy of piaint Annexure P~2i 5‘ tndisputabiy, ptatntiffe were not party to the aiteged sate—deed As per piatnt averments they are aieo in possession of the euit property. lri a situation where the piaintif‘r‘e are not party to the eate— deed nor they can be deemed to be representative in intereet of the vpereon who is bound by the sale deed aiso in possession oi the property, it ie not neceeeary for them to get sate-deed set aeide therefore, suit is not required to be vaiued as per the vaiue of Sate-deed and are not required to pay ad veteran? court fee. h 7i in view of above] in the considered opinion ofthie court, the triai court has not committed any iiiegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Conetitution of indie" 8t it ie welt eettied principle of law that thie Court, in exeroiee of ite supervieory juriediction under Articie 227 of the Conetitution oi indie! should retrain iteeif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below eXoept in euoh oaeee where perversity, iiiegaiity or jurisdictional error te writ large on the face oi the record, which ie not in the present 0886. 9. Therefore, the petition being without subetance is iiabie to be and ie hereby diemieeed. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge Ni m