GANGADHAR SAHU AND ANOTHER vs HARIBANDHU SAHU AND ANOTHER

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.1, defendant nos.1, 3 and Dinabandhu Sahu, the adoptive father of plaintiff no.2, are brothers. There

was partition of the properties by metes and bounds except the suit land. The suit land was in their possession. On 4.6.79, the defendant no.1 and his

minor sons without the consent of the plaintiffs and defendant no.3 sold the entire suit land with tank to the defendant no.2 by means of a registered

sale deed. After purchase, the defendant no.2 tried to remove the bunds of the tank. The sale is illegal. With this factual scenario, they instituted the

suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

The defendant nos.1 and 2 entered contest and filed a joint written statement. The case of the defendant nos.1 and 2 was that there was partition of

the entire joint family properties amongst the brothers of plaintiff no.1, defendant nos.1, 3 and Dinabandhu Sahu. The suit land with tank fell to the

share of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 was in possession of the same. The defendant no.1 sold the same to the defendant no.2. After purchase,

the defendant no.2 dug the tank. Defendant no.2 mutated the land in his name in Mutation Case No.6728 of 1980. The suit was bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties and under valuation.

Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary to substantiate their

case. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff no.2 is the adoptive son of Dinabandhu Sahu. The suit land is the joint properties of the plaintiffs,

defendant nos.1 and 3. Both the plaintiffs have half share on the suit land. The sale deed dated 4.6.79 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of

defendant no.2 vide Ext.4 is void. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The suit property was sold for Rs.2000/-. Necessarily the suit

land should have been valued at Rs.2000/-. The suit property was valued at Rs.200/- and as such the suit is undervalued. Held so, it dismissed the suit.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed T.A. No.13 of 1986 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur, which was eventually dismissed. Â

The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal memo. The same are:

“(2) For that the learned courts below grossly erred in law in dismissing the suit as being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the minor sons

of defendant No.1 were not impleaded in the suit. It is submitted that the said two minor sons are not necessary parties to the suit as the suit is one for

declaration of title and possession and especially in view of the settlement of land under Ext.3.

(3) For that the learned courts below grossly erred in law in holding that the suit was under-valued and further the learned lower appellate court erred

in holding that Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act is applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiffs are not required to ask for cancellation of a

void sale deed executed by defendant No.1.

(4) For that the learned lower appellate court grossly erred in law in holding that the suit was bad for indefininteness and that the plaintiffs should have

asked for partition and allotment of their respective shares.

(5) For a that the learned lower appellate court grossly erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs should have asked for cancellation or partial

cancellation of the sale deed, Ext.4, under sections 31(1) or 32 of the Specific Relief Act, inasmuch as the said provisions have no application to the

facts of the present case at all. This erroneous approach has vitiated the entire decision.â€​

Heard Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate, along with Mr. Maharshi Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appeared

for the respondents.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that once the courts below came to hold that the suit property is the joint family

properties of the parties, it ought to have been declared half share to the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the defendant no.1 has 1/4th share over

the suit property. He can alienate his share. But then, he alienated the entire suit land. The sale in excess of share of defendant no.1 is void. The suit

was properly valued.

Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not parties to the sale transaction. Whether the plaintiffs are bound to put the valuation as stated in the sale deed ?

The subject matter of dispute is no more res integra. In Smt. Tara Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar

Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another, AIR 1987 SC 2085, the apex Court held that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under

Sec.7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for

the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts

and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can

examine the valuation and can revise the same.

In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & others, AIR 2010 SC 2807, the apex Court held thus:

“6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a

deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for

cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two

brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other

hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and

non-est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as nonbinding. But the form is different

and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the

consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does

not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non-

executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has

to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with

consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto

makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less

than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.â€​

Admittedly, the plaintiffs are non-executants of the sale deed. Thus, they have to pay ad-valorem court fees according to the amount at which the

relief sought is valued in the plaint. The finding of the courts below that the suit is under valued is perverse.

The courts below came to hold that the suit property is the joint family property of the parties. Thus, the plaintiffs have half share over it.

Defendant nos.1 & 3 have 1/4th share each. Defendant no.1 sold the entire suit property to the defendant no.2. In view of the same, any excess

alienation made by the defendant no.1 is void. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

Resultantly, the impugned judgments are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed to the extent indicated above.