Allowed

Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. Krishna Kumar Agarawal

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024WP227/88/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner aggrieved by a trial court order allowing a suit rejection for improper court fee valuation challenged the decision. The High Court held that plaintiffs needing only a declaration against a sale-deed they are not parties to need not pay additional fees on it, setting aside the trial court direction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the trial court directing re-valuation is set aside; the petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously.

Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs Krishna Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:43704

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 88 of 2018

¶6

1 - Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Rai Sahab Banwari Lal Agrawal, Aged 67 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Smt. Aparna Lohiya W/o Shri Jitendra Lohiya, Aged 38 Years R/o 85 P. Block, New Alipur, Kolkatta (West Bengal)

¶8

3 - Smt. Laxmi Bunka, W/o Shri Rohit Bunka, R/o Hanuman Roller Floor Mill Private Limited, E-80, M. I. Area Alvar, Rajasthan

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Krishna Kumar Agrawal, S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Aged 34 Years R/o Banwari Lal Agrawal Ka Bunglow, Main Road Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Atul Shukla, W/o Sudama Prasad Shukla, Aged about 41 years

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2024.11.12 17:20:40 +0530

¶14

3 - Sudama Prasad Shukla, S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Shukla, Aged 60 Years R/o In Front Of Madarsa, Karbala, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶15

2 / 4

¶16

4 - Minor Shivansh Shukla, S/o Atul Shukla, Aged About 6 Years Through Legal Guardian Atul Shukla, Son Of Sudama Prasad Shukla, Respondents 2 to 4 are R/o Jarhabhata, Green Park Colony, Kinetic Showroom Ka Samne, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

5 - Chhattisgarh Government, Through The Collector Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr. MA Latif Rahman, Advocate For Respective : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Santosh Respondents Soni, Government Advocate

¶21

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari O rder on Board

¶22

11/11/2024

¶23

This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.160-A/2016, (Pawan Kumar Agrawal and others Vs. Krishna Kumar Agrawal and others ) by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, wherein, an application preferred by the private respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, raising an objection that the Court fees has not been properly valued, was allowed and time was granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs to correctly value the suit and afÏx the proper court fees, failing which, the plaint shall be rejected.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration of one fourth share in the suit property and injunction as also for future damages. After institution

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

of the suit, as the subject land is an agricultural land, the Court fees 20 times the land revenue so assessed has been valued for the relief of possession. He would further submit that during pendency of the suit, alienation has been made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4, therefore, the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs as they are not the party to the alleged sale-deed. He lastly submits that the direction given by the trial Court is not sustainable and therefore, prays to allow the petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State would support the order impugned. He would submit that proper valuation has been done and the court fees has been afÏxed.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶29

Indisputably, the subject land is an agricultural land and under Section 7(v) the Court Fees Act, for possession of land, houses and gardens , where subject matter is land, such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land – twenty times the land revenue so assessed or so payable. The plaintiffs have accordingly valued the suit and the court fees has also been paid. During pendency of the suit, when certain alienation has been made, the plaintiffs have further prayed for a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on them.

¶30

In the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, AIR 2020 SC 2807 , the law has been well settled that 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,

¶31

4 / 4

¶32

or illegal or that it is not binding on him

¶33

For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered view that since the plaintiffs are not party to the alleged sale-deed, they are not required to pay the additional court fees on such sale-deed. The direction given by the concerned trial Court by the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the Petition is allowed and the concerned trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously in accordance with

¶35

law. Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Shyna

Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. Krishna Kumar Agarawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. Krishna Kumar Agarawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs Keshav Sonkar

Devesh Sharma Vs Smt. Beenu Sharma

Smt. Niketa Tripathi Vs Rajiv Kumar Dubey

Satish Vs Smt. Saini Bai

M/S Mihir Minerals, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Vikas Khare Vs Shweta Shrivastav