AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION vs ANIL DAVID. Supreme Court, 19-02-2020
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN |
| Parties | AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATIONANIL DAVID |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-001722-001722 / 2020 |
| Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1722 OF 2020
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 18008 OF 2019)
AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANIL DAVID AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2020
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 18007 OF 2019)
J U D G M E N T
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeals were
heard finally.
2. The appellant, (hereafter “the plaintiff”) had filed a suit (O.S. 24/ 2013) in
the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun for cancellation of a sale
deed dated 08.03.2013, executed by the defendant-respondent no.1. The third
respondent, (hereafter called the “purchaser”) had acquired the property from the
defendant-respondent no.1. Another suit (O.S. No. 25/ 2013, also titled as Agra
Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David and Others), was filed by the plaintiff for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by the first two respondents
in favour of the purchaser. A further relief sought was for permanent injunction
against the respondents/ defendants restraining them from interfering in the
plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property in dispute. The defendants filed their
written statements, contending inter alia that although the relief of cancellation of
Digitally signed by
SUSHMA KUMARI
BAJAJ
Date: 2020.02.19
17:18:40 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
the sale deed in question has been sought, the plaintiff had improperly valued the
suit and the court fee paid was insufficient.
3. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues; the
relevant issues, Nos. 8 and 10 in both suits were (a) whether the suit filed by the
plaintiff was undervalued and (b) whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff was
insufficient.
4. The trial court by its order dated 23.04.2016, recorded the findings against
the plaintiff / petitioner and held that the suits filed were under-valued and the court
fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed
the writ petition before the High Court, contending that the land in dispute was
agricultural land. Further, it was stated that the appellant-plaintiff was not party to
the sale deed, and therefore, the learned trial court has committed an illegality in
deciding the issues against the plaintiff and in directing the plaintiff to pay ad
valorem court fee on the market value of the land. It was also submitted that as the
land in dispute was agricultural land, the petitioner was obliged to pay the court fee
on the revenue payable as fixed by the state government in view of Section 7(iv-A)
of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
5. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, after hearing counsel for the
parties, accepted the respondent/defendants’ contentions that the circle rate fixed by
the collector to charge stamp duty took into account the actual market value of the
property situated in the area. It was held that fixation of circle rate by the collector
is the proper mode for fixation or determination of the market value (for purposes
of payment of court fees), unless an aggrieved person challenges that the circle rate
fixed by the Collector is not the correct market value of the property.
6. Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel, argued that the land in dispute is
revenue payable land. Accordingly, the suits were correctly valued at 30 times of
the revenue fixed by the state. It was urged that being a stranger to the sale deed in
question, the plaintiff had to pay 1/5th on the market value as assessed, i.e. on 30
times the revenue. It was urged that the market value in the sale deed was
mentioned at ₹11,79,09,000/- and ₹ 7,20,36,000/- respectively as the market value
To continue reading
Request your trial