1 2025:CGHC:54212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 227 of 2025 1 - Kalpana Thakkar W/o Lat Kishore Chand Thakkar Aged About 60 Years R/o Flat No. 403, Third Floor, Jailakshmi Complex, Fafadih, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Neha Bhojani W/o Niket Bhojani Aged About 32 Years R/o Old Civil Line, Near Railway Station, Jaishankar Residence, Ward No. 14, Dist.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Ramesh Thakkar S/o Dharam Singh Thakur Aged About 74 Years R/o M-12 Green Land, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicants : Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For State : Mr. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. The applicants have preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned 7th Additional Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Judge of First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 39A/2025 in the matter of Ramesh Thakkar vs. Kalpana Thakkar and Others. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a Civil Suit bearing No. 39A/2025 has been instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The essence of the said suit revolves around the dispute concerning ownership, possession, and the validity of a registered gift deed executed in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 330, admeasuring 0.146 hectares, situated at village Purena, P.H. No. 67, R.N.M. Raipur-2, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). According to the plaint, the plaintiff and one late Shri Kishore Chand Thakkar, who was the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2, were real brothers belonging to a joint Hindu family. Their late father having passed away at an early stage, the plaintiff, being the elder brother, took upon himself the responsibility of raising, educating, and settling his younger brother, the said Kishore Chand Thakkar. The plaintiff contends that he was the Karta and head of the joint Hindu family, and in such capacity, he purchased the suit land out of the joint family funds for the benefit of the family as a whole. However, the said land was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, i.e., the wife of late Shri Kishore Chand Thakkar, merely for convenience and without conferring upon her any independent ownership rights. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff, as the 3 head of the family, remained in possession of and exercised ownership over the said land, managing it as part of the joint family property. It is further stated that in the year 1990, late Shri Kishore Chand Thakkar along with his family shifted to Nagpur, Maharashtra, for employment and residence. Thereafter, due to the expansion of the joint family and arising necessities, the joint family properties were partitioned amicably in the year 1995 between the plaintiff and his younger brother, late Shri Kishore Chand Thakkar. As per the terms of such family partition, the plaintiff and his younger brother each became entitled to an equal half share in the suit land. Since the property stood recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 but was purchased out of joint family funds, it was agreed that despite the title being in her name, the plaintiff would retain ownership of half share in the land. All original documents relating to the purchase and ownership of the suit property have since remained in the custody of the plaintiff. It has been further pleaded that the younger brother of plaintiff, late Shri Kishore Chand Thakkar, passed away in the year 2005, leaving behind his widow (defendant No. 1) and daughter (defendant No. 2). Taking undue advantage of the fact that the suit land continued to stand recorded in her name in the revenue records, defendant No. 1, on 18.11.2024, executed a registered gift deed in favour of her daughter, defendant No. 2, thereby purporting to transfer the entire property without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff. It is alleged that such act was done with malafide intention to usurp the lawful share of plaintiff in the joint 4 family property and to cause him financial loss. According to the plaintiff, the said gift deed is illegal, void ab initio, and not binding upon his rights, being executed without lawful ownership and in contravention of the partition and the joint family understanding. The plaintiff has further averred that on 25.12.2024, certain unknown persons attempted to demolish and damage part of the boundary wall constructed by the plaintiff on the suit land. The plaintiff, unaware of the culprits’ identities at that time, lodged a police complaint against unknown persons regarding the said incident. However, after a period of 10–12 days, the plaintiff discovered that the persons involved in damaging the boundary wall were, in fact, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and that defendant No. 1 had executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 18.11.2024. The plaintiff also came to know that a public notice had been published in a local daily newspaper by the defendants, declaring ownership rights and stating that the plaintiff had no claim or concern over the suit land. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 expressed an intention to construct residential and/or commercial structures over the suit land and to sell the same in parts, which according to the plaintiff is wholly illegal and an infringement upon his rights. In view thereof, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating, transferring, or altering the nature of the suit property. However, the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025, holding that no prima facie case or irreparable loss was made out. 5 Subsequently, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC before the same Court, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was undervalued and proper Court fees were not paid. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had sought two distinct reliefs, first, declaration that the registered gift deed dated 18.11.2024 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, void, and not binding on the plaintiff, and second, declaration and injunction recognizing the plaintiff’s half ownership in the suit property. It was urged that the plaintiff had valued the suit for declaration at Rs. 1,000/- and for permanent injunction at Rs. 1,000/-, and paid a total court fee of only Rs. 200/-, which was grossly inadequate. According to the defendants, since the market value of the suit land was Rs. 1,12,00,000/-, the claimed share of plaintiff was worth Rs. 56,00,000/-, and hence, the proper Court fee should have been paid on that valuation. The defendants further argued that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was arbitrary, incorrect, and deliberately minimized in order to avoid the payment of requisite court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870 and to retain jurisdiction before the lower Court. The defendants contended that the suit, in its true form, involved valuation beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Junior Division Court and thus deserved to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 3. Upon hearing both sides, the learned trial court rejected the said application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the 6 application was not bona fide and not appropriate, and that the plaint could not be rejected merely on the basis of the defendants’ objections regarding valuation at the preliminary stage. Aggrieved by this order, defendant No. 1, as applicant, has preferred the present revision, contending that the impugned order is illegal, improper, perverse, and unsustainable in law, as the learned court below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff deliberately undervalued the suit, thereby causing prejudice to the defendants and rendering the proceedings before the lower Court without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the valuation of the suit by the plaintiff is arbitrary, illusory, and contrary to law. The plaintiff, while instituting Civil Suit No. 39A/2025, deliberately and with malafide intent undervalued the suit property and affixed an inadequate and insufficient Court fee, with the sole purpose of bringing the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court. The plaintiff has challenged the validity of a registered gift deed dated 18.11.2024, which pertains to immovable property bearing substantial value, i.e., Rs. 1,12,00,000/-, and has simultaneously sought a declaration of ownership over half of the said property, valued at Rs. 56,00,000/-. Despite this, the plaintiff has whimsically valued his relief for declaration at a nominal figure of Rs. 1,000/- and the relief for injunction at Rs. 1,000/-, thus paying a total Court fee of only Rs. 2,000/-. Such valuation is not only illusory and arbitrary, but also a blatant attempt to evade the 7 statutory mandate of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and is therefore impermissible in law. The learned trial Court erred in entertaining the suit without verifying whether the valuation was correct and the Court fee sufficient under the law. The learned trial court, while entertaining the plaint and proceeding with the trial, failed to exercise its statutory duty under Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Order 7 Rule 11(b) & (c) of the CPC, to ascertain whether the valuation made by the plaintiff was proper and whether the Court fee affixed thereon was commensurate with the true market value of the property in dispute. It is submitted that the trial Court was bound to conduct a prima facie scrutiny of the valuation before assuming jurisdiction over the matter. The omission of the Court to do so has resulted in grave procedural irregularity and a failure of jurisdiction, as the suit was not properly instituted within the meaning of Section 9 read with Order 4 Rule 1 CPC. Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court is illegal, void, and unsustainable. The learned trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. The trial Court, while rejecting the well-founded application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has overstepped its jurisdiction and misdirected itself in law. The Court failed to appreciate that non- payment of the proper Court fee and improper valuation are not mere procedural irregularities, but go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court. When a suit is instituted with gross undervaluation and deficient Court fee, the Court is barred from proceeding until 8 the deficiency is rectified. The decision of trial Court to dismiss the objection raised by applicant, therefore, constitutes a jurisdictional error, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court gravely erred in treating the suit as a mere declaratory suit and in holding that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was proper. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the real nature and substance of the claim of plaintiff. The suit of plaintiff is not a simple suit for declaration of status or title; it is, in effect, a suit challenging the validity of a registered instrument, namely, a gift deed executed in respect of immovable property valued at Rs. 1,12,00,000/-. In law, when a plaintiff seeks to have a registered deed declared void, inoperative, or non-binding, the suit must be valued according to the market value of the property affected by such document, as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and relevant case law. The approach of learned trial Court of treating the suit as a mere declaratory action has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, as it has allowed the plaintiff to circumvent the statutory requirement of valuation and to prosecute a high-value property dispute before a forum lacking pecuniary competence. By accepting a deficient Court fee and undervaluation, the learned trial Court assumed jurisdiction in a matter that was not properly instituted. The payment of proper 9 Court fee and correct valuation of the suit are conditions precedent for the valid institution of a civil suit. In the absence of proper valuation, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) CPC, as the deficiency in Court fee is a jurisdictional defect, not a mere procedural lapse. The trial Court, by accepting the plaint despite evident undervaluation and by rejecting the objection raised by applicant without due consideration, has acted without jurisdiction. Such an order cannot be sustained, as it has resulted in serious prejudice to the applicant and has deprived him of his lawful right to have the dispute adjudicated by a court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, perversity, and non-application of mind. The trial Court has neither examined the true market value of the property nor considered the nature of the relief sought, and has instead proceeded on superficial grounds. The findings of the Court are based on erroneous assumptions and misinterpretation of the law relating to court fees and valuation. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional as well as legal error, warranting interference by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order dated 19/06/2025 and to allow the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, and consequently reject the plaint for undervaluation and non-payment of proper Court fee; In the alternative, direct the plaintiff to revalue the suit on the market 10 value of the property and to pay the requisite Court fee in accordance with law before the suit is proceeded with. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the present revision petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference by this Court. The learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The question of valuation and adequacy of Court fees is essentially a matter between the plaintiff and the State, and unless it is demonstrated that the undervaluation has caused a failure of justice or has ousted the jurisdiction of Court, such objections cannot be entertained at the preliminary stage. The trial Court has correctly appreciated that the suit filed by plaintiff primarily seeks declaratory and injunctive reliefs, and as such, the valuation adopted was within the permissible limits prescribed under law. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that the suit should have been valued on the market price of the property is misconceived, as the plaintiff has not sought possession or cancellation of the gift deed, but merely a declaration regarding its non-binding nature. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity, and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents appended along with the revision. 11 8. The core issue arising for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without framing a preliminary issue and without recording a finding on the correct valuation and sufficiency of court fee. The law is well settled that valuation of a suit and sufficiency of Court fee are not mere procedural matters but go to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the defendant raises a specific and bona fide plea that the valuation is illusory or that proper Court fee has not been paid, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to frame a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, take evidence, and decide the same before proceeding to the trial of the main suit. Such determination is essential to ensure that the Court is competent to entertain the matter both pecuniarily and legally. 9. In the present case, the trial Court has failed to examine this aspect in the correct legal perspective. The Court has neither framed a specific issue regarding valuation and Court fee nor undertaken any inquiry to ascertain whether the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was justified in law. The order of rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, appears to have been passed without due application of mind to this jurisdictional aspect. At the same time, it is also to be noted that the suit as filed involves two reliefs i.e. a declaration regarding the validity of the gift deed, and a prayer for injunction relating to possession and alienation. 12 10. Insofar as the relief of declaration concerning the gift deed is concerned, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that such relief, being of declaratory nature, may be maintainable if properly valued under the law. The Court finds no illegality or irregularity in that part of the order, which shall therefore remain undisturbed. However, with regard to the valuation and payment of Court fee, this Court finds substance in the contention of the applicants that the issue requires specific adjudication by the trial Court after framing an appropriate preliminary issue and allowing both sides to adduce evidence thereon. The trial Court ought to have verified whether the valuation adopted by the plaintiff truly reflected the market value of the property or the relief sought, as mandated under the Court Fees Act, 1870. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 is hereby set aside to the limited extent in respect of valuation and affixing of proper Court fees and the learned trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue with regard to the valuation of the suit and the sufficiency of Court fee, and thereafter to record evidence of the parties, if necessary, and to decide the said preliminary issue in accordance with law. It is further directed that upon consideration of the evidence and materials, if it appears to the trial Court that the valuation made by the plaintiff is improper or that the Court fee paid is deficient, the trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, including directing the plaintiff to make up the deficiency, under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. 13 11. Insofar as the relief regarding the declaration of the gift deed as null and void is concerned, this Court finds that the order passed by the trial Court on that aspect is well-reasoned and does not warrant interference. The trial Court shall, however, proceed to decide and consider the said aspect of the case preferably on the next date of hearing, and if that is not feasible, then on some nearby date, ensuring expeditious disposal of the matter. 12. With these observations and directions, the present Civil Revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge