Kamalkishore and Another vs Jagannath Prasad and Another

S.K. Pande, J.—This revision Under Section. 115 C.P.C- / is directed against the order dated 6-9-03, passed by District Judge, Sehqre instituted l-A/01.

Plaintiff/non-applicant Late. Jagan nath Prasad and Smt. Rajgunni instituted C.S. No. 1-A/01 seeking declaration of nullity of registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 said to have been executed by plaintiff Late Jagannath Prasad on the ground that de fendant/applicants got executed the registered sale deeds aforesaid by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. As per-para 15 of the plaint (Annexure A-1), fixed Court fees for declaration and injunction has been paid. Defendant applicants inter alia contended that the registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 were executed in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-, therefore, u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, plaintiff/non-applicants are required to pay ad valorem Court fees. The Court below vide impugned order dated 6-9-03 held that payment of ad valorem Court fees for the relief of declaration and injunction as set up in plaint (Annexure A-1) is not required. Being aggrieved, defendant/applicants have preferred this revision u/s 115 C.P.C.

Admittedly, plaintiff Late Jaganriath Prasad said to have executed the registered sale deeds dated 8-7-99 of the value Rs. 2,10,000/- in favour of defendant/applicants. In Partap and Another Vs. Smt. Puniya Bai and Others, it has been held that where a person who is party to an agreement or transaction and his allegation is that it. is not. binding on him because it was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, it is necessary for him to seek the consequential relief of setting aside such agreement or transaction and as such the suit � falls within the purview of Section 7(c) of the Court Fees Act.

In Kuntidevi v. Roshanlal 1987 MPLJ 25 in similar circumstances, it has been held that in a suit for declaration by executant of sale deed that it was illegal and void on ground of fraud and being without consideration, he is required to pay the ad valorem Court fees u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Consequential relief of setting aside the sale deeds dated 8-7-99 is implied in the relief seeking declaration of nullity of sale deeds aforesaid. As such, the suit is covered u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court fees Act and plaintiff/non-applicants are required to pay ad valorem Court fees to seek declaration of nullity of sale deeds dated 8-7-99. The order impugned passed by Court below suffers from material irregularity-illegality.

Consequently, the revision is allowed. Setting aside the order impugned passed by Court, below, plaintiff/non-applicants are directed to pay the requisite Court fees u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. No order-as to costs.