TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. In view thereof the present petition is directed to be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Registry is directed to renumber the same. 2. At the outset, it has been submitted on behalf of either side that the respondent No. 1 is the only contesting respondent in the instant case. 3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 2.6.2018 and 5.7.2018 of the Court of the Additional District Judge-02, Karkardooma Courts, in CS-174/16 whereby vide order dated 2.6.2018, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff, i.e., the respondent No. 1 to the present petition, seeking an amendment in paragraph 19 of the plaint in relation to the aspect of valuation of the suit property for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction was allowed and apart from the same, there was another amendment also allowed in relation to bringing on record the new authorized representative of the plaintiff, i.e., the respondent No. 1. 4. The petitioner, as already observed herein above, has also assailed the impugned order dated 5.7.2018 of the learned Trial Court which reiterated the order dated 2.6.2018 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7." the issue does not require any further debate. It has been lucidly held by the Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for cancellation of sale deed dated 24th April, 2006? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration as prayer for ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, if so, how much and from which of the defendants? OPP 6. Whether the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged by the defendants? OPD 7. Whether the defendant NO. 3 is the bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute as alleged by the defendant No. 3? OPD3 8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and appropriate Court fees has not been paid by the plaintiff? OPD 9. Relief." 7. Issue No. 8 was specifically in relation to the objections raised on behalf of the defendant No. 2, i.e., the present petitioner qua the aspect of the suit having not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and the jurisdiction and whether the appropriate court fee had not been paid by the plaintiff and that the objection raised by the defendant No. 2 i.e. the present petitioner herein was to the effect that the suit had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the defendant. In the instant case, the nature of the suit was not to be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application because the suit was for specific performance and initially the property had been valued at Rs. 13,50,000/- but as the market value of the property was actually Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, the appellant-plaintiff had submitted an application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint." 9. Vide paragraph 7 of the said verdict relied upon, it has been specifically observed to the effect that the nature of the suit would not change by virtue of granting the amendment application where the property has initially been valued at Rs. 13,50,000/- but as the market value was at Rs. 1,20,00,000/- the applicant plaintiff therein had submitted an application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint and taking the same into account the amendment sought was granted. 10. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 i.e., the plaintiff of the suit before the learned Trial Court, on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Private Limited; (200....