Mohd. Rafat v. Jamila Begum & Ors.

1. The petitioner is the defendant no.1 in the suit. The petitioner/defendant no.1 impugns the order of the trial court dated 11.8.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). What was prayed for in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction because the plaintiffs in the suit/plaint (respondents nos. 1 to 5 herein) besides claiming 50% ownership in the suit property, is also questioning the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 2014:DHC:4714 20.2.2013 pursuant to which respondent nos. 1 & 2 are claiming ownership in the suit property and that the value of the suit should be the value of the property mentioned in the MOU at Rs.2.[4] crores.

2. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112 has held that a person who is not a party to a document need not apply for cancellation of such a document. The Supreme Court has clarified that once a person is not a party to a document, such a person need not apply for cancellation of the document; the suit need not be valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction on the value of the document; and ad valorem court fee is not payable on the suit with respect to cancellation of the document.

3. The only aspect which is urged before this Court, and which was also urged before the trial court, was that valuation of the MOU makes the pecuniary valuation of the suit property, and that since the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013 values the suit property at Rs.2.[4] crores, the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 should have valued the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at the value of the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013.

4. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra), and admittedly since the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 are not parties to the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013, the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 did not have to seek cancellation of the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013, and therefore plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 5 need not value the suit property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at the value of the property which is mentioned in the MOU/Agreement to Sell dated 20.2.2013.

5. The petition is hence without any merit and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 KA