The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dismissed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit declaring a sale deed void for fraud and lack of court fee. The bench found no substantial question of law and held the findings against the appellant were factual.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.223 of 2010
Ghanshyam Yadav, 33 Yrs. S/o Late Jairam Yadav, Behind
Employment Office, Pandari, Raipur
---Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Abhimanyu Agrawal, 27 Yrs., S/o Sunder Lal Agrawal,
Chandrashekhar Nagar, Lakhenagar, Raipur
---Respondent/Defendant
For Appellant/Plaintiff:Mr.Raja Sharma, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
11/01/2021
Heard this second appeal on admission and formulation of substantial question of law preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff finding no merit.Mr.Raja Sharma, learned counsel for theappellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the
Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that
sale deed is not void and the plaintiff is not
entitled for decree to this effect and dismissed the
suit by recording a finding which is perverse to
2
record and as such, the second appeal involves
substantial question of law for determination.
The plaintiff executed sale deed dated 24.6.2006 (Ex.P-1) in favour of the defendant by obtaining cash consideration of ₹ 1,49,000/- and thereafter brought a suit that sale deed dated 24.6.2006 (Ex.P1) is void, it is obtained by playing fraud and not binding on him and decree for declaration be granted to him alleging that it was obtained on the pretext of giving loan to him. In fact, no sale deed was executed by him and therefore, it is void. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record by its judgment and decree dated 9.5.2008 dismissed the suit. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiff is party to sale deed and he has not paid ad-valorem court fee in view of the provisions contained in Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1870'). The plaintiff after executing sale deed dated 24.6.2006 (Ex.P-1) by getting cash consideration of ₹ 1,49,000/- preferred a suit that sale deed is not binding on him, it is void and obtained by fraud.Both the Courts below have held that valid sale deed3
has been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the
defendant and title has already been passed in
favour of the defendant, it is not actuated by
fraud or misrepresentation and ad-valorem court fee
has not been paid under Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Act
of 1870. The findings recorded by both the Courts
below that valid sale deed has been executed by the
plaintiff in favour of the defendant and requisite
court fee has not been paid are the findings of fact
based on evidence available on record. It is neither
perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the said finding and
even I do not find any substantial question of law
for determination of this second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No cost(s). Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
JUDGE
B/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises from findings that a sale deed was validly executed and ad-valorem court fee was not paid.
Whether findings that the plaintiff is a party to the sale deed constitute perversity.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ghanshyam Yadav
Abhimanyu Agrawal
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court