[2025:RJ-JP:5614] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18544/2024 1. Gopi Chand Gupta S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Gupta, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Todi Gudha Gourji, Near Gudha Gourji Bus Stand, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 2. Ashok Gupta S/o Shri Gopi Chand Gupta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Todi Gudha Gourji, Near Gudha Gourji Bus Stand, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. M/s. Shri Satya Shivam Associate Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) Through Partner Shri Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Todi Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 2. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner M/s. Shri Satya Shivam Associate. 3. Lalit Kumar S/o Devkinandan, R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner M/s. Shri Satya Shivam Associate. 4. Sampat Kumar Beniwal S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Singh Beniwal, R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner M/s. Shri Satya Shivam Associate. 5. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Devkinandan, R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner Firm Defendant No. 1 6. Pushpendra Kulhari S/o Shri Bhomaram, R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner Firm Defendant No. 1 7. Shravan Singh S/o Shri Kushlaram, R/o Garhwalo Ka Bass Bhodki, Police Station Gudha, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner Firm Defendant No. 1. 8. Vinod Kumar Jhajhadiya S/o Shri Asharam Jhajhadiya, [2025:RJ-JP:5614] (2 of 4) [CW-18544/2024] R/o Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner Firm Defendant No. 1. 9. Krishan Chahar S/o Not Known, C/o Shrdhanath College, Gudha Gourji, Tehsil Gudha Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) Partner Firm Defendant No. 1. 10. Inder Kumar S/o Late Shri Gheesulal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Empress Mill Road, Bajariya, Nagpur, (Maharashtra) 440018 11. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan). 12. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps, Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 13. Sub Registrar, Registration And Stamp, Tehsil Gura Gourji, District Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 10/02/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the said court had directed to the plaintiffs to pay court fees in terms of Sections 24-B of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') for declaration of the sale deed dated 12.01.2012 as null and void and declaring them as owner of the property on [2025:RJ-JP:5614] (3 of 4) [CW-18544/2024] account of adverse and permanent injunction in which trial court vide its order dated 03.07.2024 wrongly ordered to pay the court fees as per Section 24-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that Section 24-B of the Act is not applicable because plaintiffs were not party in the sale deed. They have long possession over the disputed property, so they wanted to declare themselves as owner on account of adverse possession. So, order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and trial court is directed to proceed further because plaintiffs have filed the court fees as per Section 24-E of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Kedar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Agarwal and Ors. reported in (2020) 09 RAJ CK 0033; (2) Devnarayan Sharma Vs. Ramphool and Ors. in D.B. Civil Reference No.5/2020 decided on 11.03.2024; (3) Jagdish Sahu and Ors. Vs. Sonu and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8973 of 2014 decided on 31.01.2017 and (4) Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. Jai Narain reported in 2011(2) Civil Court Cases 694 (P&H). I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs were claiming themselves as owner of the suit property on the account of adverse possession on the disputed land. They have no title document regarding disputed land as was in the ownership of the defendant's forefathers. Plaintiffs wanted to declare the sale deed [2025:RJ-JP:5614] (4 of 4) [CW-18544/2024] dated 12.01.2012 as null and void which was executed by defendant No.10 in favour of defendant No.1. The cost of the disputed land as per sale deed dated 12.01.2012 was Rs.1,31,00,000/-. Virtually the plaintiffs wanted to cancel the said sale deed. So, in my considered opinion trial court rightly ordered to pay the court fees as per Section 24-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /09