# Smt. Ratni Devi & Ors. Revisionist v. Smt. Asha Hans

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1342
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 36 of 2017
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ratni-devi-ors-revisionist-v-smt-asha-hans-49122
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Revision challenging declaratory suit - nullifying
a sale deed - Issues of improper valuation and
insufficient court fees - Emphasized valuation
based on land revenue - Criticized rejection of
amendment application - Directing lower court
to reconsider application.

Revision allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, the Full Bench decision of this Court
in Kamla Yadav is binding precedent.
There is nothing for this Court not to go by
it.

13.

The
Civil
Revisions
are,
accordingly, held maintainable.

14. Since orders were reserved in
these
revisions
on
the
point
of
maintainability, when these came up before
the Court as fresh causes, lay both these
matters as fresh on 13.01.2023.

15. The interim orders passed in both
the revisions shall continue to remain in
operation till the next date of listing.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1342
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Civil Revision No. 36 of 2017

Smt. Ratni Devi & Ors. ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Asha Hans ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Revision challenging declaratory suit - nullifying
a sale deed - Issues of improper valuation and
insufficient court fees - Emphasized valuation
based on land revenue - Criticized rejection of
amendment application - Directing lower court
to reconsider application.

Revision allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Ran Vijay & anr. Vs Board of Revenue & anr.
2017 (1) C.A.R 815 Alld

2. Indal Kumar Kushwaha & anr. Vs Rajesh
Kumar Gupta & ors. 2008 A.C.J. 838

3. M/S Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. Hardoi & ors.
Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2010 (111) RD 617

4. Anuruddha Kumar & anr. Vs Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority & anr. 2000 A.C.J 1397

5. Ganga Vs Vijay A.I.R 1974 S.C. 1126

6. Pirgonda Vs Kalgonda A.I.R. 1957 S.C 363

7. Ram Chandra Sakharam Vs Damodar (2007)
6 S.C.C 737

8. Rajesh Vs K.K. Modi, A.I.R 2006 SC 1647

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This civil revision has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
23.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Court No.6,
Meerut in Original Suit No.846 of 2014
(Smt. Ratni Devi Vs. Smt. Asha Hans).

2. In brief facts of the case are that
revisionist, Smt. Ratni Devi filed a suit for
declaratory decree to declare the sale deed
dated 07.05.2014 null and void registered
in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mawana,
District Meerut and to send its information
to the concerned Sub-Registrar.

3. According to the plaint and the
revision, Smt. Ratni Devi (now deceased)
was the owner and Bhumidhar with
transferable rights of khasra no.460 area
0.5060 hectare and khasra no.462 area
0.4430
hectare
situated
in
Village
Himaunpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil
1 All. Smt. Ratni Devi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Hans
1343
Mawana, District Meerut. She was an old
and ill lady. Her cardiac treatment was
going on. Respondent defendant is the
daughter of the revisionist-plaintiff. The
plaintiff was getting pension after death of
her husband who was working in MCD,
Delhi. When for the purposes of purchasing
fertilizers she took a copy of khatauni on
19.07.2014, she came to know that
defendant had got executed a sale deed in
her favour of her land. The plaintiff
obtained a certified copy through advocate
on 07.05.2014 then she came to know that
it is shown that in lieu of Rs.7,50,000/- she
has sold 0.1145 hectare and 0.6707 hectare
land to the defendant in which husband of
the defendant and one Anil Kumar Sharma,
advocate, Tehsil Mawana have been shown
marginal witnesses.

4. The petitioner had neither proposed
to sell her land to the defendant nor ever
executed any sale deed in her favour. On
07.05.2014 in the garb of increase of
pension she was taken by the defendant and
in good faith defendant got signed some
papers telling it to be the pension papers
which she had not read over. By playing
fraud the defendant has shown the
execution of sale deed. There was no
necessity of sale of property in suit. The
plaintiff neither sold the land nor obtained
any consideration.

5. During pendency of the case the
plaintiff died. Her three sons namely Dinesh
Kumar, Dev Kumar and Anand Kumar were
her heirs and she had executed sale deed on
20.08.2014 about complete movable and
immovable property in their favour. Dev
Kumar died on 18.03.2015, therefore, his
heirs have been arrayed as plaintiff. When the
matter was reported to the defendant she
accepted her fault and assured to get the sale
deed cancelled but later on clearly refused to
do so. Hence, cause of action arose and suit
had been filed.

6. During the course of hearing on
19.04.2016, issue no.2 regarding improper
valuation of the suit and payment of
insufficient court fee, issue no.3 were
decided. So far as issue no.2 is concerned the
court assumed that the plaintiff has properly
valued the suit but about the payment of court
fee the lower court held that since the
property has been valued at Rs.7,50,000/-,
and the plaintiff was party to the sale deed,
therefore, under Section 7(IV)-A of the Court
Fees Act, 1870 the plaintiff would pay ad
valorem court fee at the market value of the
case property.

7. Instead of complying with the order
regarding issue no.3, the plaintiff moved 41Ka amendment application, in which the
plaintiff proposed to value the suit for relief 'A'
at Rs.600/- (thirty times of the annual rent of
RS. 20/-) and proposed to pay the court fees
Rs. 87.50/-and for proposed relief 'B'
regarding permanent injunction valuing the
growing crops at Rs. 6 lacs proposed to pay
maximum Court fee Rs. 500/-.

8. Objection was filed by the defendant
and after hearing it was held that by way of
amendment application the facts proposed to
be inserted in paragraph-13 of the plaint would
nullify the order dated 19.04.2016. Hence, the
amendment application was not maintainable.
Though an option was given to the plaintiff to
move
separate
amendment
application
regarding the rest facts proposed to be inserted
by way of amendment. Accordingly, the
amendment application was rejected and the
plaintiff was directed to pay the additional
court fees as per order dated 19.04.2016.

9. Being aggrieved the revisionistplaintiff has filed this revision.
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. None appeared from the side of
either party. Since the revision should be
decided on merit, hence this revision is
decided on merit as per law.

11. Admittedly, the suit has been filed
for cancellation of registered sale-deed, in
which the revisionist is the party to the
deed. It is also admitted that the property in
suit is land revenue payable agricultural
land and the purpose of buying the land is
mentioned as cultivation. Though, as per
the market value of the property in suit was
Rs. 17,17,000/- upon which the stamp duty
for a sum of Rs. 76,000/- has been paid but
Rs.7,50,000/- is shown as consideration
money. It is also noteworthy that plaintiff
and defendant are the real mother and
daughter. In the plaint, the plaintiff has
valued the suit at Rs. 7,50,000/- but had
paid maximum court fee Rs.200/- for relief
(A) stating that the plaintiff had prayed for
a declaratory decree to declare the saledeed dated to be null and void.

12. First of all the nature of the land
in suit is to be seen. Admittedly it is a land
revenue paying agricultural land and no
declaration for conversion of its nature has
been made. For the purpose of this revision
it would be proper to place some relevant
citations in this regard which are given
below.

13. In Ran Vijay & Anr. Vs. Board of
Revenue & Anr. 2017 (1) C.A.R 815 Alld,
the petitioner was using the agricultural
land as Aabadi. The petitioner's plea was
that since the land in dispute has been used
as Aabadi Revenue Court ceases to have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit under
Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The
court held that the plea of the petitioner is
not tenable because unless declaration
under Section 143 for change, in use of
land is obtained by the S.D.O, it will
remain to be agricultural land and revenue
court will have jurisdiction to entertain the
suit. The court further clarified that even
Civil Court or High Court can not act as
competent authority under Section 143 to
grant such permission.

14. In this case the property in suit is
still an agricultural land and no declaration
under Section 143 has been made. Hence,
the land in suit shall be deemed to be land
revenue paying agricultural land.

15. In Indal Kumar Kushwaha and
another vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and
others 2008 A.C.J. 838, it is again held that
unless agricultural land is notified under
Section 143, it can not be treated as
residential land.

16. In M/S Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills
Ltd. Hardoi And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and
Anr, 2010 (111) RD 617, it is held that if
the land is occupied for agricultural
purposes or connected with such purposes,
it will continue to be an agricultural land
even if Bhumidhar builds house in a
agricultural holding or on form unless a
declaration under Section 143 is obtained.

17. In Anuruddha Kumar & another
Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
& another 2000 A.C.J 1397, it is held that
since there was no declaration under
Section 143 of changing the nature of the
land into residential plot, it would be only
agriculture land and not a residential plot. It
is presumption that the plot sold was
residential plot on the basis of its potential
in future, is not reasonable.

Thus,
on
the
basis
of
aforementioned judgements and on the
basis of documents available on record, it is
1 All. Smt. Ratni Devi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Hans
1345
concluded that the property in suit is an
agricultural land and if any deed of transfer
has been executed and registered in respect
of an agricultural land and a suit for
cancellation of such instrument is filed, it
will be valued on the basis of land revenue
and not on the basis of consideration
money or the market value.

18. Section 7 (IV-A) of the Court
Fee Act is as under:-

(iv-A)
For
cancellation
or
adjudging void instruments and decree.-

(iv-A) In suits for or involving
cancellation of or adjudging void or
voidable a decree for money or other
property having a market value, or an
instrument securing one or other property
having such value:

(1) where the plaintiff or his
predecessor-in-title was not a party to the
decree or instrument, according to one-fifth
of the value of the subject-matter,

(2) where he or his predecessorin-title was not a party to the decree or
instrument, according to one-fifty of the
value of the subject-matter, and such value
shall be deemed to be--

If the whole decree or instrument
is involved in the suit, the amount for which
or value of the property in respect of which
the decree was passed or the instrument
executed, and if only a party of the decree
or instrument is involved in the suit, the
amount or value of the property to which
such part relates.

Explanation.- The value of the
property for the purposes of this subsection shall be the market-value, which in
the case of immovable property shall be
deemed to be the value as computed in
accordance with sub-section (v), (v-A) or
(v-B), as the case may be.

(iv-B) For easement. - In suits -

(a) for a right to some benefit
(not herein otherwise provided for) to arise
out of land;

(b) For an injunction. - to obtain
injunction;

(c) To establish an adoption.- to
establish an adoption or to obtain a
declaration that an alleged adoption is
valid;

(d) To set aside an adoption.- to
set aside an adoption or to obtain a
declaration that an alleged adoption is
invalid or never, in fact, took place;

(e) To set aside an award other
than awards mentioned in Section 8.- to set
aside an award not being an award
mentioned in Section 8; according to the
amount at which the relief sought is valued
in the plaint:

Provided that such amount shall
not be less than one-fifth of the market
value of the property involved in or effected
by the relief sought or Rs. 200 whichever is
greater:

Provided further that in the case
of suits falling under clauses (a) and (b),
the amount of court-fee leviable shall in no
case exceed Rs. 500.

Explanation 1.- When the relief
sought is with reference to any immoveable
property the market-value of such property
shall be deemed to be the value computed
in accordance with sub-section (v), (v-A) or
(v-B) of this section, as the case may be.

(v) For possession of lands,
buildings or gardens.- In suits for the
possession of land, buildings or gardens-

according to the value of the
subject-matter; and such value shall be
deemed to be-

(I) Where the subject-matter is
land, and-

(a) where the land forms an entire
estate or definite share of an estate paying
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annual revenue to Government, or forms
part of such an estate, and is recorded in
the Collector's register as separately
assessed with such revenue and such
revenue is permanently settled-

thirty
times the revenue so
payable;

(b) where the land forms an entire
estate or a definite share of an estate
paying annual revenue to Government, or
forms part of such estate and is recorded as
aforesaid and such revenue is settled but
not permanently-

ten times the revenue so payable;

19. In this case, the plaintiff is the
party to the deed, and the land in suit is
land revenue payable land, therefore, the
suit would be valued on the market value
and the market value would be 30 times
of the land revenue and if the land
revenue is permanently settled, the court
fee would be paid 30 times of the the
revenue so payable and if the land
revenue is not permanently settled the
court fee would be 10 times of the land
revenue so payable. In this case it has
been concluded and also admitted to the
parties that the property in suit is a land
revenue
payable
agricultural
land,
therefore, the suit would be valued on 30
times of the land revenue so payable as
the plaintiff is party to the impugned saledeed and the Court fee would be paid
considering the fact as to whether the
revenue is permanently settled or not.

20. Normally in U.P. the land
revenue are not permanently settled,
therefore, even if a person party to the
deed institutes a suit for adjudging the
instrument to be null and void, he would
value the suit at 30 times of the revenue
so payable, but shall pay the court fee on
10 times of the revenue so payable.

21. In this case, it is not denied to the
defendant-respondent
that
the
annual
revenue of the property in suit is not Rs.
20/- annual.

22. In the proposed amendment the
plaintiff had multiplied the annual land
revenue Rs. 20/- x (into) 30 times which
becomes Rs.600/- upon which, he has
proposed to pay Rs. 87.50 as court fee.
Here what is important to note that if the
land revenue of the property in suit is not
permanently settled, the plaintiff has to pay
the Court Fee ten times of the land revenue
so payable while he has proposed to pay
the Court fee more than that, treating it to
be land revenue permanently settled, thus
the proposed amendment in respect of
relief "A", is found to be true and correct
and also in accordance with law.

23. The plaintiff has also proposed
some factual amendments in amendment
application stating that since 06.08.2016
the defendant had started obstacles in
plaintiff's use and occupation over the
property in suit and is trying to cut and
damage the crops standing over the
property in suit for which he has valued the
suit at Rs. 6 lacks and has proposed to pay
the maximum court fee Rs. 500/- for the
proposed relief of permanent injunction.

24. In Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs.
Ravindra Nath Singh and Others, decided
on 20.12.2013, this Court referring the
cases- 1949 AWR 67(DB) (All) (Para
10),(2010)5 SCC 622 (Para 13), 2006 (100)
RD 568 (Uttra) (Para 18), (2013) 1 SCC
579 (Para 7), 1972 AWR 808 (All) (Para11)
has held that in case when a prayer has
been made to declare the sale-deed null
and void and to send the information to the
concerned
Sub-Registrar
and
if
the
property in suit is an agricultural land
1 All. Smt. Ratni Devi & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Hans
1347
whereupon land revenue is payable, the suit
shall be valued at the market-value and the
market-value would be decided in view of
the Section 7 (v), (v-A) or (v-B).

Therefore, the view expressed in
the aforementioned judgement is in support
of the view expressed by this Court.

25. The proposed amendment dated
16.08.2016 was rejected by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) VI, Meerut, on the
ground that if the proposed amendment is
allowed, the order dated 19.04.2016 passed
on issue nos. 2 and 3 would be redundant.

26. From perusal of the record, it
transpires that when the property in suit
was an agricultural land, it had to be valued
on the basis of land revenue so far as the
relief for declaration of sale-deed to be null
and void is concerned. It was fault of the
advocate that he valued the suit at the
consideration money instead of valuing the
suit on the basis of 30 times land revenue
payable to the Government. It appears that
later on considering the mistake to correct
the
same,
the
proposed
amendment
application was moved and which was
rejected on 23.11.2016. Since the Court
was also knowing that the property in suit
is an agricultural land whereupon land
revenue is payable to the Government,
therefore, it was also duty of the Court to
point out the defects and to instruct the
plaintiff to remove it through proper
amendment besides deciding issue no. 3 in
respect of court fee against the plaintiff and
directing her to pay the ad-valorem court
fee according to the consideration money. It
appears
that
the
lower
court
was
apprehending that if the amendment is
allowed, the order passed on 19.04.2016 in
respect of issue nos. 2 & 3 would be
nullified. Virtually the lower Court should
have discarded such apprehension, mindset
and fear while deciding the amendment
application. According to this Court, the
amendment
should
be
decided
in
accordance with law enumerated under
Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. If the amendment
would have been allowed, the wrong
committed by the plaintiff's counsel and the
Court would have also been rectified. Even
after
accepting
the
amendments
by
amending issue nos. 2 & 3, the question
regarding valuation and court fee could be
decided again.

27. The Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. is as
under :

Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil
Procedure :

17. Amendment of pleadings-
The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be
necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between
the parties.

Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial.

28. In this case till now the trial has
not commenced, hence the proviso of Rule
17 does not apply and was no bar in
allowing the amendment application. By
the proposed amendment the nature of the
suit, cause of action or the basis of suit was
not going to be changed and no irreparable
injury/damage was to be caused to the
defendants.
No
such
admission
was
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proposed to be withdrawn on which basis
any right had been accrued in favour of the
defendant.

29. In Ganga Vs Vijay A.I.R 1974
S.C. 1126, it is held that the power to allow
an amendment is undoubtedly wide and
may at any stage be appropriately exercised
in the interest of justice, the law of
limitation not withstanding "amendment is
permissible for determination of the real
controversy between the parties".

30. In Pirgonda Vs. Kalgonda A.I.R.
1957 S.C 363, it is held that amendment
should normally be allowed if it does not
cause injustice to the opposite party and is
necessary for determination of real issues.

31. Probably the lower court would
have thought that the proposed amendment
is mala-fide but considering the facts from
all four corners this Court is of the view
that the proposed amendment was not
mala-fide and if it would have been
allowed later on the issues with regard to
insufficiency of court fee and valuation
could have been amended and re-framed
even
by
way
of
additional
written
statement, the defendant had an opportunity
to take a plea that even after the
amendment the suit is under valued and the
court fee paid is insufficient. Thus no
injustice would have been caused to the
defendant.

32. In Ram Chandra Sakharam vs.
Damodar (2007) 6 S.C.C 737, it is held
that no amendment petition shall be
rejected solely on the ground that there
has
been
delay
in
applying
for
amendment. Because the delay could be
compensated by awarding costs to the
defendant. Amendment seeking to make
claim more precise so as to enable the
court
to
adjudicate
upon
it
more
satisfactorily should be allowed.

33. In Rajesh Vs. K.K. Modi, A.I.R
2006 SC 1647, it is held that while
considering an amendment petition the
Court should not go into the correctness
or the falsity of the case in the
amendment, nor should it record a
finding on the merits of the amendment
sought to be incorporated by way of
amendment.

34. On the basis of the above
discussions, this Court is of the view that
the proposed amendment ought to have
been allowed. Although, it was affecting
the order passed by the lower court
earlier about the issues no. 2 & 3, but in
spite of that after filing of additional
written statement the issues regarding
valuation and payment of court fee would
have been amended and the issues
regarding valuation and court fee would
have been open to decide again.

35. The plaintiffs had also remedy
to challenge the order dated 19.04.2016
passed in respect of issue nos. 2 and 3. It
is also noteworthy that the issue of
valuation and payment of court fee is
between the plaintiff and the court,
therefore it was duty of the court to
consider that when the property in suit is
land revenue payable agricultural land,
why it was not valued as per section
7(IV-A) and why the court fee was not
paid as per the existing law. The court
cannot take benefit of it's own wrong and
if the plaintiff later on tried to correct the
valuation clause, the court should not
have create hurdle in it.

36. On the basis of the aforementioned
discussions, this Court is of the opinion that
1 All. Star Paper Mills Limited, Saharanpur Vs. Smt. Anisa Begum & Ors.
1349
the revision deserves to be allowed and the
order dated 23.11.2016 is liable to be
quashed.

37. The revision is allowed. The order
dated 23.11.2016 passed in Original Suit No.
846 of 2014 (Smt. Ratni Devi Vs. Smt. Asha
Hans), is hereby set-aside.

38. Learned lower court is directed to
decide he amendment application afresh after
affording opportunity to both the parties in
light of the observations mentioned above. A
copy of this Judgement be sent to the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-6th
Meerut, through the District Judge, Meerut,
for immediate compliance.

39. The stay order dated 08th February,
2017, regarding stay of further proceedings of
O.S. No. 846 of 2014, stands vacated.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1349
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Civil Revision No. 18 of 2008

Star Paper Mills Limited, Saharanpur
 ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Anisa Begum & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Pankaj Agarwal

Civil Law - The Indian Stamp Act,
1899- Section 2(14-A) - Challenged
rejection of defendant's application to
impound "yaddasht hiba" - Document
recording oral gift - Amendment clarified
memorandum of oral gift or hiba - now
taxable
to
stamp
duty-
No
costs
awarded.

Revision succeeded. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohammad Shamim Akhtar Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2012(11) ADJ 698

2. Hafeeza Bibi & ors. Vs Shaikh Farid (Dead) by
LRs. & ors., 2011 (2) ARC 218

3. Inspector General of Registration and
Stamps, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs Smt. Tayyaba
Begum, AIR 1962 AP 199

4. Nasib Ali Vs Wajed Ali, AIR 1927 Cal 197

5. Sukhdeo Prasad, AIR 1934 All 1052

6. Hanuman Prasad Vs The St. of Rajasthan,
AIR 1958 Raj 291

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This revision is directed against the
order of the Additional District Judge, Court
No.2, Saharanpur, rejecting the defendants'
application under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC
read with Rule 60 of the General Rules
(Civil), 1957 and Sections 31, 32, 33, 38 and
40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short,
'the Act of 1899) asking the Court to impound
the document bearing paper No. 354-Ka filed
by one Farid Ahmad, a third party, seeking
impleadment, in support of his impleadment
application.

2. The facts in a nutshell leading to
this revision are that Smt. Anisa Begum, a
resident
of
Kori
Tilla,
Saharanpur,
instituted O.S. No. 317 of 1991 in the exCourt of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur [now
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)] against the two
defendants, who are substantially the same