Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7909 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rangi Lal Respondent :- Smt. Pushpa Lata Agarwal And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Karuna Srivastava Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondents 1 and 2; and have perused the record.
The petitioner had instituted Original Suit No.966 of 2010 for cancellation of sale deed executed by his father in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. The suit was valued at thirty times the annual land revenue and for the purposes of payment of court fee it was valued at ten times the annual land revenue and court fees was paid accordingly. Upon objection taken by the defendant in the suit that the suit was under valued and the court fee paid was deficient, issue Nos.3 and 4 were framed by the trial court which came to be decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner by order dated 21.05.2014. Aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2014, the defendants filed Civil Revision No.56 of 2017 in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar, which was allowed by order dated 26.08.2017 whereby the order dated 21.05.2014 was set aside and the trial court was required to decide Issue Nos.3 and 4 afresh. It is against this remand order dated 26.08.2017, that the instant petition has been filed by incorrectly mentioning the dates of the impugned order.
A perusal of the order passed by the revisional court would reflect that according to the defendants the subject matter of sale deed was declared Abadi, under Section 143 of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore the valuation of the suit on the basis of land revenue was not justifiable hence the suit was liable to be valued afresh keeping in mind the market value of the land/subject matter of the sale deed.
The trial court had not dealt with the aforesaid aspect and therefore the revisional court found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision on the aforesaid issue.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that the suit was rightly valued at thirty times the annual land revenue. However, he has not been able to dispute that the trial court had failed to accord consideration whether the subject matter of sale had been declared Abadi under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and as to what would be the consequences of such declaration and whether thereafter the suit could be valued on the basis of thirty times the annual land revenue.
Under the circumstances, since the revisional court has remanded the matter back and had required the trial court to consider the aforesaid aspect, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the remand order. The petitioner would have liberty to address the trial court as to how the valuation of the suit is justified and whether such valuation could be justified even after declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. By leaving all the aforesaid issues open and by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all pleas, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 AKShukla/-