UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 Judgment Reserved on:05.06.2026 Judgment Delivered on:19.06.2026 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY CIVIL REVISION NO.8 OF 2026 Virendra Kumar Bahuguna ...Revisionist Versus Ravindra Kumar Bahuguna …Respondent. Counsel for the revisionist : Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel. JUDGMENT: (per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.) The present civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Dehradun in O.S. No.578 of 2023, “Virendra Kumar Bahuguna Vs. Ravindra Kumar Bahuguna”, whereby the objection filed by the respondent with regard to the Court fee was allowed and the revisioinist was asked to pay the Court fee on the market value of the suit propoerty. 2. As per the averments made in the revision, revisionst’s father late Shri Devi Dutt Bahuguna was owner of the house No.156B, Dharampur, Dehradun, which consisted of four portions and each portion had a two-room set, kitchen and washroom. Shri Devi Dutt Bahuguna had four sons and two daughters. During his lifetime, the father of the revisionist executed a registered Will on 20.06.1988, whereby the three 1 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 portions of the house were given to the three sons except the revisionist and it was stipulated in the Will that during the lifetime, the father of the revisionst would be residing in the fourth portion and further after his death, the vacant portion was to be occupied by his wife and after her death the said portion was to be occupied by any of the three sons and it was provided that the son who would occupy the fourth portion would pay ₹20,000/- to the revisionist. Thus, as per the Will the revisionist was not given a right to occupy any portion and the only right which was devolved in his favour was that any of his three brothers who would occupy the vacant portion after the death of their mother would pay ₹20,000/- to the revisionist. Revisionist’s father died on 10.05.1992 and after his death the revisionist’s mother also passed away on 07.05.1995 and, thereafter, the respondent occupied the said fourth portion. 3. It is the case of the revisionist that he was not aware of the Will dated 22.06.1988 and he learnt about the said Will through someone on 20.12.2023 and, thereafter, he applied for copy of the Will from the office of Sub-Registrar, Dehradun and after going through the Will he discovered the said facts. 4. Based on the above-mentioned facts, an Original Suit No.578 of 2023 was filed by the revisionist initially with a 2 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 prayer that a decree of permanent injunction be passed against the respondent restraining him from selling, transferring or creating any third-party interest in the suit property i.e. the fourth portion occupied by the respondent after the death of his mother. 5. The revisionist stated in the plaint that at the time of execution of the Will the value of the land and the building was ₹20,000/- which at the current rate is ₹90 lakh and the respondent is liable to pay the said amount to the revisionist. Later on, the plaint was amended and paragraph no.13A and prayer AA was added to the effect that the respondent is in illegal possession of the suit property as he has not complied with the conditions of the Will and, as such, a prayer was made for grant of decree of mandatory injunction against the respondent for providing possession to the revisionist. 6. The revisionist also contended in paragraph no.13A of the plaint that either the vacant portion of the suit property be delivered to him or in the alternative the market value of the property assessed by the revisionist to be ₹90 lakh be paid by the respondent to the revisionist. 7. The respondent filed an objection that the property has been overvalued by the revisionist and also submitted that the Court fee paid was to be determined as per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. 3 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 8. Learned Trial Court framed the issue as to whether the property is overvalued by the revisionist and as to whether the Court fee paid for relief AA is inadequate. 9. Learned Trial Court vide order impugned came to a conclusion that the value of the property as determined by the revisionist is proper and rejected the objections of the respondent. 10. Learned Trial Court decided the issue of Court fee against the revisionist and concluded that as the revisionist has claimed the relief of mandatory injunction and possession, as such, the Court fee is liable to be paid on the market value of the property as determined by the revisionist. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was required to pay the Court fee with regard to the relief claimed and as per Court Fees Act, the Court fee was to be paid on the rental value of the property as determined by the Municipal Corporation. She further submits that as there is no procedure prescribed under the Court Fees Act as to how market value of any property is to be determined, as such, the market value was to be determined, on the basis of the rental value, as decided by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court also in the case of C.L. Basra Vs. Pearey Lal Basra (1960) 0 AIR (ALL) 590. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent 4 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 submits that initially the revisionist had filed the suit claiming that the revisionist is the joint owner and is in possession of the suit property and a relief for perpetual prohibitory injunction was sought against the sale, transfer and creation of third-party interest. The revisionist, as per his own case, had stated that an amount of ₹20,000/- was to be paid in the year 1995 and the current value of the property was ₹90 lakh. The valuation of the property, as claimed by the revisionist, was found to be correct. 13. Later on, by amendment the revisionist claimed a relief of mandatory injunction and sought possession from the respondent, as such, the Court fee is to be paid on the market value of the property and Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act would be applicable. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the entire memo of the revision is silent with regard to any jurisdictional error and, as such, the revision under Section 115 CPC is liable to be dismissed. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. The facts, which are not in dispute in the present case, are that the revisionist has claimed the relief in the suit on the basis of the Will executed by his late father. The issue, which arises in the present civil revision, is that as to whether 5 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 the Court fee was to be paid as per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act on the market value of the suit property. 17. The issue of determination of Court fee is to be seen not only with respect to the relief claimed but also with respect to the substance of the plaint. In this regard, the contents of paragraph no.1, paragraph nos.5 to 9 and paragraph no.14 of the plaint are relevant which read as under: “1-;g fd oknh lEifÙk la[;k&156 ch] /keZiqj] nsgjknwu] ftldk foLrkj ls o.kZu bl okni= ds vUr es lwph es of.kZr lEifÙk es fd;k x;k gS] dk la;qä :i ls ekfyd] Lokeh] dkfct o v/;klh gSA 2-------- 3------- 4------ 5- ;g fd olh;r fnukad 22-06-1988 ds ist la[;k&4 es oknh ds firk Loå Jh nsoh nÙk cgqxq.kk }kjk ;g Li"V :i ls mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd lEifÙk ds chp dk lsV ftles os Lo;a rFkk mudh iRuh bl le; jg jgs gS] muds ejus ds ckn mles mudh /keZiRuh jgsaxh rFkk mudh /keZiRuh ds ejus ds ckn rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa esa ls tks yMdk ml lsV dks j[ksxk] og nwljs yMds fojsUæ ¼oknh½ dks :i;s 20]000@& tehu o edku dh ,ot es ml le; mldh dher ds vuqlkj vnk djsxkA 6- ;g fd oknh ds firk Loå Jh nsoh nÙk cgqxq.kk dk fnukad 10-05-1992 dks nsgkUr gks x;k FkkA muds nsgkUr ds i'pkr~ mä lsV es oknh dh ekrk vFkkZr Loå Jh nsoh nÙk cgqxq.kk dh iRuh Loå Jherh losZ'ojh nsoh cgqxq.kk jgrh jgh vkSj fnukad 07-05-1995 dks mudk Hkh nsgkUr gks x;k FkkA 7- ;g fd oknh dks vius }kjk fu"ikfnr olh;r fnukad 22-06-1988 dk Kku fnukad 20-12-2023 dks gqvk] tc oknh dks fdlh ds ek/;e ls ;g irk pyk fd muds firk }kjk ç'uxr~ lEifÙk dh ckcr vius thoudky es ,d olh;r lEikfnr dh x;h FkhA bl ij oknh }kjk fnukad 20-12-2023 dks gh lcjftLVªkj dk;kZy;] nsgjknwu ls ç'uxr~ olh;r dh çekf.kr çfrfyfi çkIr djus gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k rFkk olh;r ds i<us ds mijkar oknh dks lR;rk irk pyhA 8- ;g fd çfroknh dks olh;r es of.kZr mä lsV ftldk bl okni= ds vUr esa lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk es mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] çkIr gqvk] ijUrq çfroknh }kjk oknh ls olh;r dks fNik;k x;k vkSj olh;r es mfYyf[kr /kujkf'k vkt rd oknh dks çnku ugh dh x;hA 9- ;g fd olh;r ds vk/kkj ij o"kZ 1995 es olh;r es mfYyf[kr mä lsV dh tehu o edku dk ewY;kadu :i;s 20]000@& Fkk tks fd orZeku es cgqr vf/kd gks x;k gSA çfroknh] oknh dks orZeku cktkjh ewY; ds vuqlkj edku o tehu dh 6 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 dher ds ,ot es yxHkx :i;s 90]00]000@& vnk djus gsrq dkuwuh :i ls mÙkjnk;h gSA 10-------- 11------- 12------ 13------ 14- ;g fd okn dk dkj.k fnukad 07-05-1995 dks LFkku nsgjknwu es ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj es mRiUu gqvk tc oknh ds firk ds nsgkUr ds i'pkr~ fnukad 07-05-1995 dks oknh dh ekrk dk nsgkUr gks x;k vkSj okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk çfroknh us dCtk fd;k rFkk oknh dks olh;r es mfYyf[kr mä lEifÙk dh ,ot es :i;s 20]000@& vnk ugh fd;s rRi'pkr~ fnukad 20-12-2023 dks oknh dks olh;r dk Kku gksus ij rRi'pkr~ dy fnukad 21-12-2023 dks oknh dks olh;r ds vuqlkj iSlk vnk djus ls euk djus ij rFkk lEifÙk dks foØ; djus dh /kedh nsus ij mRiUu gqvkA mä okn dkj.k vkt Hkh tkjh gSA” 18. On the basis of the said averments made in the plaint, initially the relief “A” was claimed which reads as under: “d- ;g fd çfroknh] mlds çfrfuf/k] fgr çfrfuf/k] okfjlku] mÙkjkf/kdkjh] ,tsUV] vkfn&vkfn dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dh vkKfIr ls fuf"k) fd;k tk;s fd os okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk dks foØ; o LFkkukarfjr u djs rFkk u gh lEifÙk es fdlh r`rh;i{k dk vf/kdkj l`ftr djs rFkk u gh bldk dkj.k cusA” 19. Later on, the revisionist amended the plaint and added paragraph no.13A and prayer AA, which reads as under: “13v ;g fd okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk es çfroknh dks voS/k dCtk gS] D;ksafd mlus olh;r fnuk¡d 22-06-1988 dk vuqikyu ugh fd;k gSA bl dkj.k ;g U;k; laxr gS fd çfroknh dks vkKkRd O;kns'k ls vknsf'kr fd;k tk;s fd og okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk dk dCtk o v/;klu oknh dks lkSi nsa vFkok fodYi es oknh dks vkt ds cktkjh ewY; ds vuqlkj :i;s 90]00]000@& vnk dj nsaA” “^^dd^^ ;g fd çfroknh mlds fgr çfrfuf/k] çfrfuf/k] okfjlku] mÙkjkf/kdkjh] ,tsUV vkfn&vkfn dks vkKkRed O;kns'k ls lwfpr fd;k tk;s fd os okni= dh lwph esa of.kZr lEifÙk ls viuk voS/k dCtk gVkdj oknh dks lkSi nsA bl vk'k; o fu.kZ; o fMØh oknh ds i{k esa rFkk çfroknh ds fo:) ikfjr fd;k tk;sA” 20. Thus, the revisionist, as per his own case, valued 7 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 the property to be of ₹90 lakh and contended that the respondent is in illegal possession of the suit property and, as such, claimed possession of the suit property, which consisted of the land and house. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the market value of the property was to be assessed as per rental value of the property as determined by the Municipal Corporation and the case was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of C.L. Basra(supra) is bereft of any merit. 21. In the case of C.L. Basra (supra), the rental value of the property was determined by the plaintiff therein and the learned Trial Court relied on the said rental value and discarded the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who has held the value of the property otherwise. 22. In the present case, there is no pleading in the plaint with regard to any rental value of the suit property and, on the contrary, the revisionist had assessed the market value of the suit property as ₹90 lakh, which valuation has been upheld by the learned Trial Court by rejecting the objections of the respondent. 23. Admittedly, the revisionist is not in possession of the suit property and has claimed the possession of the suit property, which consists of land and house, as such, the determination of the said issue by the learned Trial Court that 8 UKHC010014412026 2026:UHC:5089 Court fee is to be paid on the market value, as per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, cannot be termed to be perverse. Moreover, there is no averment that the order impugned is an order without jurisdiction. Thus, scope of interference under Section 115 of the CPC is limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Varadarajan Vs. Kanakavalli and Others (2020) 11 SCC 598 has held as hereunder: “15…The High Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction has interfered with the order passed by the executing court as if it was acting as the first court of appeal. An order passed by a subordinate court can be interfered with only if it exercises its jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The mere fact that the High Court had a different view on the same facts would not confer jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the executing court. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the executing court is restored. The appeal is allowed.” 24. In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has neither transgressed any principle of law nor there is any contravention of any rule or procedure. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. 25. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt:19.06.2026 Sukhbant 9 SUKHBAN T SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc 7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4 BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.06.19 14:01:11 +05'30'