This writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee in an under-valued suit. The court followed Supreme Court precedent to hold that as an executant of the deed, the plaintiff must pay this fee.
The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted one month's time to deposit the deficit court fee.
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 / 4
2024:CGHC:34458
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 535 of 2021
1 - Smt. Suratiya Bai Wd/o Late Sudhlal, Aged About 64 Years R/o Vill. Pendry, Ward No. 20, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - Pritak Bajpai S/o Shri Dwarika Nath Bajpai, Aged About 55 Years R/o Trimurti Colony, Ward No. 12, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At Vill. Pendry, Ward No. 20, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Miss Laxmeen Kashyap, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
Order On Board
04/09/2024 :
Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2024.09.05 11:27:45 +0530
2 / 4
valorem Court fee, as the suit was under valued and proper Court fee has not been affixed, though the plaintiff is one of the party of the questioned sale deed.
3 / 4
Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. {(2010) 12 SCC 112}, which was followed by this Court in the matter of Kalpataru Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Agrawal and Ors . [2016 SCC Online Chh.1253].
has been observed:-
“ 7 . 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 non-binding. 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.”
4 / 4
Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Barve
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition should be dismissed when the trial court rightly directed an executant of a sale deed to pay ad valorem court fee.
Whether the writ court can grant time to deposit the deficit court fee under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the impugned order directing payment of court fee under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC calls for interference by the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors.Followed¶22
(2010) 12 SCC 112 · Who else cites this
Kalpataru Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Agrawal and OrsFollowed¶24
[2016 SCC Online Chh.1253] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Suratiya Bai Wd/o Late Sudhlal
Pritak Bajpai
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
