IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Civil Revision No, l V \ /2011 ^. ai^ a@i .on APPLICANTS Defendant. N0,1 to 4 & 10 ./^/ .^y /..- ^.^/^ ^^~ /•/ /^ y//^' <y LSPONDENTS laintiff ^>^ ^ l] Benkumar Verma, S/o. Late Brijbhushan Verma, aged about 32 years, R/o. Giraud, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2] Aniitabh Verma, S/o. Late Brijbhushan Verma, aged about 29 years, R/o. Giraud, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Padma Verma, D/o, Late Brijbhushan Venna, aged about 35 years, R/o. Giraud, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 4] Rani Verma, D/o. Late Brijbhushan Verma, aged about 27 years, R/o. Giraud, Tahsil & District Raipur ^.G.) 5] Bombay- Financial Servicing Private Limited, through: its Director namely Kishore M. Gandhi, aged about 37 years, S/o. Mohanlal Gandhi, R/o. Aiiupam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VEKSUS l] Mohd. Nayeem Klian, S/o. Late M.A. Wahid, aged about 52 years, R/o. Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2] Malwsh Kumar Patel, S/o. Mohanlal Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o. Fafadih, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Defendant no,F» 3] Mohd. Karsan Patel, S/o. Awaji Patel, R/o. Manmaya Bhattachaiyaji Steel, Kollcata-4 West Bengal Defendantno.6 4] Jagdish Patel, S/o. Devram Patel, aged about 59 years, R/o. 162/4, Narsing Datta Road, Kadarn Talla, Hav\Tah, West Bengal, Defendant n0.7 5] Hitesh Patel, S/o. Mansukhlal Patel, aged about 23 years, R/o. Fafadih, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur Defendant no.8 6] Kantilal Patel, S/o. Dayaram Patel, aged about 59 years, R/o. Naya Bazar, Vinayak Nagar, Cuttack-4, Orissa Defendantno.Q 7] State of Chhattisgarh, through : Collector, Raipur, Collectorate Office, Raipur (C.G.) Defendant no.il CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION ll.^ OF CODE OF CrVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 111 OF 201 1 APPLICANTS DefendanfNo.1to4&1Q RESPONDENTS Plaintiff Benkumar Verma & others VERSUS Mohd. Nayeem Khan & others CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CtVIL PROCEDURE (SinaleBench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15/11/2011) Instant revision is directed against the order dated 05.08.2011 , passed bythe Vllith Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 54-A/11 whereby and whereunder the applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC has been dismissed. Respondent No.l/plaintiff fited a suit for declaration of his title over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 635/1, area 4.569 Hect. and Khasra No. 635/27. area 1.942 Hect. situated at Village Giraud, Distt. Raipur, on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction and for declaration to declare the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 5,6,8,9 & 10 as null and void. 3. As per plaintiff, he acquired title of suit land pursuant to his adverse possession over the suit property and the defendant No. 1 to 4 have no right to sale it to other defendants i.e. defendant ..^'/t ^1 ,r ^ ^ ^ B^y '^^^^;- No. 5,6,8,9 & 10 and the sale deeds executed by them is void ab-initio and is not binding upon him. 4. The suit was valued at Rs. 1000/- for the purpose of dedaration of title, Rs. 1000/- for declaration of sale deeds as void and ineffective and Rs. 1000/- for injunction for the purpose of court fees and valuation and accordingly court fees has been paid. 5. Applicants herein sought rejection of the plaint by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. inter alia on the ground: suit is time barred, not maintainable and has not been valued in accordance with valuation of sale deed in question and proper court fees has not been paid. 6. The triat Court vide order impugned dismissed the above application. Hence, this revision. 7. I have heard Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order impugned. 8. The law js 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 suit land; if he is not executant of the sale deed and is also in possession of the suit property, he can simply fite a suit for declaration by paying fixed court fees. 9. In the instant case, indisputably, the plaintiff was not executant of the sale deed and also in possession of the suit property and the suit property is agricultural land. 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 fl( fi t^-tf'st^ 1 ^s^ 1 "-;»-_ "^syii 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 surt has been valued at Rs. 1000/- for the purpose of declaration of title, Rs. 1000/- for declaration of sale deeds as void and ineffective and Rs. 1000/- for injunction for the purpose of court fees and valuation and accordingly court fees has been paid, therefore, the value put by the plaintiff is in accordance with law. 12. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration on the basis of adverse possession when he entered into possession of the suit property vide agreement of sale deed dated 21 .10.1991, is a question to be decided by trial court in trial after recording evidence of both the parties. But on above ground, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage. On the basis of plaint averment, it cannot be said that suit is time barred. 13. In view of above, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting defendant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC warranting interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 14. The revision, being devoid of substance, is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu