The trial companyrt 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 companyrt fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the writ petition before the High Court, companytending that the land in dispute was agricultural land.
8 and 10 in both suits were a whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was undervalued and b whether the companyrt fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient.
It was also submitted that as the land in dispute was agricultural land, the petitioner was obliged to pay the companyrt fee on the revenue payable as fixed by the state government in view of Section 7 iv A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Another suit O.S. No.
The appellant, hereafter the plaintiff had filed a suit O.S. 24/ 2013 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge Senior Division , Dehradun for cancellation of a sale deed dated 08.03.2013, executed by the defendant respondent number1.
The trial companyrt on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues the relevant issues, Nos.
Further, it was stated that the appellant plaintiff was number party to the sale deed, and therefore, the learned trial companyrt has companymitted an illegality in deciding the issues against the plaintiff and in directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem companyrt fee on the market value of the land.
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by against the respondents defendants restraining them from interfering in the SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ Date 2020.02.19 171840 IST Reason plaintiffs peaceful possession of the property in dispute.
RAVINDRA BHAT, J. Leave granted.
With companysent of companynsel for the parties, the appeals were heard finally.
The third respondent, hereafter called the purchaser had acquired the property from the defendant respondent number1.
The defendants filed their written statements, companytending inter alia that although the relief of cancellation of the sale deed in question has been sought, the plaintiff had improperly valued the suit and the companyrt fee paid was insufficient.
