1 2025:CGHC:24626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 494 of 2025 1 - Ashiya Begum W/o Bashir Khan Aged About 69 Years R/o Risai Para, East Dhamtari, Post, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sajik Khan S/o Bashir Khan Aged About 44 Years Muslim R/o Post Office Ward Star Sita Factory Near Sen Samaj Bhawan, Dhamtari, Post Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Adil Khan S/.O Bashir Khan Aged About 42 Years Muslim, R/o Risai Para Near East Mandir, Post, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Rizwan Khan S/o Bashir Khan Aged About 37 Years Muslim R/o Post Office Ward Star Sita Factory Near Sen Samaj Bhawan, Dhamtari, Post, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application moved by the defendants/respondents No.1 & 3 under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed therein directing the petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fee. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the gift deed dated 14.2.2019 is not binding upon her along with the relief of injunction. The petitioner valued the suit at Rs.36,42,000/- for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction as per market value and affixed the court fee of Rs.1,000/-. 3. The respondents filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. Respondents No.1 and 3 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not affixed ad-valorem court fee though she herself is the executant of the gift deed. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid application contending that she has rightly valued the suit property and affixed proper court fees for the relief of declaration and injunction. It is also stated that since the petitioner has merely prayed that the gift deed is not binding upon her, therefore, there was no requirement to pay ad-valorem court fee. 4. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 9.4.2025 partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to affix ad-valorem court fee. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous. He would further submit that the gift deed was the outcome of fraud and therefore, there was no requirement to seek cancellation of the gift deed 3 dated 14.2.2019. He would also submit that the plaintiff has the right to value the suit as per her wishes and reliefs of declaration and injunction have been sought, for which appropriate court fee has already been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter of Manzoor Ahmed vs. Jaggi Bai and Others, 2009 (4) MPHT 347, wherein it was held that the plaintiff is not required to seek consequential relief of cancellation of the document or to pay ad-valorem court fees, as the suit property was never sold and no consideration was received. It was further held that since the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit property, she was not required to claim cancellation of the document or to pay ad- valorem court fees. The relevant para 8 is reproduced herein below:- “8. It depends upon the averments made in each case in the plaint whether ad valorem Court fees is payable or not. Court has to find out whether a transaction is alleged to be "void" or "voidable". In case of void document, it is not necessary to seek the relief of cancellation of document. In the instant case also, plaintiff is claimed to be in possession, she is not claiming relief for possession, thus, it could not be said that ad valorem Court fees is required to be paid.” 6. In the matter of Sunil Radhelia and Others vs. Awadh Narayan -4- and Others, 2010 (4) MPHT 477, it was held that when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding on him, ad-valorem court fee is not payable. Furthermore, when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void on the ground that it is a forged document and does not bear the signature of the executant, he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. The relevant para 16 is reproduced herein below:- “16. To sum up, the questions referred to this Court are answered thus:- (1) Ad valorem Court fee is not payable when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him. (2) The decision rendered in Narayan Singh (supra), lays down the law correctly that the plaintiff a party to the instrument is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee as he had made an allegation that the instrument was void on the ground that the document was forged one and it does not bear the signature of the executant. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, held that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. However, 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. It is 5 further held that if the executant of the deed seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration, whereas a non-executant may file a suit by affixing the normal court fee required for declaration and injunction. The relevant para 7 is reproduced herein below:- “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 the 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 -6- 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.” 8. In the present case, the gift deed dated 14.2.2019 was executed by the petitioner herself. The judgment in the matter of Sunil Radhelia (supra) was rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 8.9.2010 whereas the matter of Suhrid Singh (supra) was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.3.2010 but it was not brought to the notice of the Full bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It Is a well settled principle of law that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be binding on all courts including High Courts, therefore the contention made by Mr. Prajapati cannot be accepted. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh (supra), the petitioner is required to seek cancellation of the deed and at the same time, she has to pay ad valorem court fee based on the valuation of the suit property. 9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi