Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 108 of 2024 1 - Krishna Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Gokul Ram Chandrakar Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Pitiyajhar, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District (C.G.) Mahasamund 2 - Rajendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Gokul Ram Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Pitiyajhar, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District (C.G.) Mahasamund 3 - Prahalad Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Gokul Ram Chandrakar Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Umarda, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District (C.G.) Mahasamund 4 - Smt. Gangabai Chandrakar W/o Harakh Ram Chandrakar Aged About 71 Years D/o Late Shri Gokul Ram Chandrakar, R/o Imlibhata Mahasamund, (C.G.) Tehsil Mahasamund District And
Legal Reasoning
10. It is well settled that while consideration the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, only the allegations made in the plaint are required to be considered. 11. Considering that cause of action arose in the month of March, 2023 and the other issue concerning limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it is directed that the trial Court shall decide the aforesaid objection after collecting evidence. As regards valuation and the Court fee, this Court finds that proper valuation has been made and accordingly Court fee has been affixed, and there is no error in the valuation and the Court Fee. However, as regards limitation, the trial Court shall frame an issue and decide the same in accordance with law.
Arguments
5 - Smt. Devjani Chandrakar W/o Munna Lal Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years D/o Late Shri Gokul Ram Chandrakar, R/o Village Belsondha, Mahasamund, (C.G.) Tehsil Mahasamund District And 6 - Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ghasi Ram Chandrakar Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward No. 23, Pitiyajhar, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District (C.G.) Mahasamund 7 - Ram Swaroop Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Belsondha, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District (C.G.) Mahasamund 8 - Smt. Neera Bai Chandrakar W/o Shri Chova Ram Chandrakar, D/o Late Ram Prasad Chandrakar, R/o Village Birkoni, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.22 17:03:38 +0530 2 1 - Chandrika Prasad Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Khemraj Chandrakar Aged About 62 Years R/o Daldali Road Ward No. 12, Pitiyajhar, Mahasamund, (C.G.) Mahasamund District 2 - Smt. Rajim Bai Chandrakar Wd/o Late Shri Anandi Chandrakar Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Lakholi Tehsil Arang District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Dilip Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Anandi Chandrakar Aged About 59 Years R/o Chilpawan Chowk Jhalap, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Narendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Anandi Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Lakholi, Tehsil Arang District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Raj Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Anandi Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Lakholi, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Laxmi Chandrakar W/o Shri Tika Chandrakar Aged About 48 Years D/o Late Shri Anandi Chandrakar, R/o Near Tehsil Court Bagbahra, Tehsil (C.G.) Bagbahra, Mahasamund District 7 - Gopal Ram Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ghasi Ram Chandrakar Aged About 78 Years R/o Kurmipara Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. No.1/plaintiff For : Shri T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Respondent/State Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 22/01/2025 : 1. Heard on IA No.2, application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision. 2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the Revision is condoned. 3 3. This Revision has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 26.2.2024 passed by the 16th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.506-A/2023 whereby the objection raised by the petitioners/defendants by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. 4. Facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and set off of the land which has been sold by Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar, who received compensation in the land acquisition proceeding has also been claimed. In the said civil suit, the petitioners have moved an application/objection stating that the suit is not properly valued and the same is time barred, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the sale deed has allegedly been executed on 6.6.2014 and the land acquisition proceeding has been drawn and an award has been passed in the year 2009. However, through clever drafting, a set off has been claimed. He has drawn attention of the Court towards the contents of the plaint, specifically relief ‘l’. He would submit that the set off has been claimed in respect of compensation and the consideration passed in the sale deed. Therefore, the suit is in the nature of money and the provisions under Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act attracts and only a declaratory suit has been filed. Reliance is placed in the matter of Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak1. 1 AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1526 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that when the Court finds that the valuation is arbitrary in nature, the Court can direct the plaintiff to correct the same. Reliance is placed in the matter of Rattan Lal Joshi Vs. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari and Others2. In the said case, the Court has found that by way of clever drafting, the suit has been filed for declaration, though the suit was for compensation, whereas in the present case, on reading of the plaint averments, it is explicit that the suit is time barred and undervalued and the trial Court has wrongly rejected the aforesaid objection. Hence the Revision may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would support the impugned order. He would submit that Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar has already extinguished his share by making sale to others and no consideration has been passed in favour of father of the plaintiff and compensation in land acquisition proceeding was also received. When the defendants moved an application in the year 2023 under Section 178 of the CG Land Revenue Code for partition of the accounts, cause of action arose and, therefore, the present suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction and set off of the share of Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar was also claimed. As the subject matter is the agricultural land, the suit has been valued for the relief of declaration at Rs.1,000/- and for the relief of permanent injunction, at Rs.1,000/-, and accordingly, Court fee has been paid. Therefore, proper valuation has been made and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 2 AIR OnLine 2024 Punjab and Haryana 370 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Revision with utmost circumspection. 9. After going through the averments made in the plaint, it appears that in the plaint, it has been specifically averred that in the month of March, 2023, an application has been filed for partition of the separate account under Section 178 of the CG Land Revenue Code. Thereafter for the remaining land of the accounts, a declaration has been sought and it has been averred that the share received by Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar be given in favour of the plaintiff, as nothing has been paid by Jagmohan Lal Chandrakar of the sale consideration and compensation was received by him in the land acquisition proceeding.
Decision
12. With the aforesaid direction, the instant Revision is disposed of. Judge Barve Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)