Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Pandit Shyobuxrai Arichwal Charitable … vs Anita Sharma W/O Late Praveen Sharma on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7072]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2794/2026
Pandit Shyobuxrai Arichwal Charitable Trust, Bagar Tehsil,
District Jhunjhunu Through Trustee Vishnudatt Sharma, Age 50
Years, Son Of Late Biharilal Sharma, Resident Of Ward No. 2,
Sheetla Mohalla, Bagar Tehsil, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Anita Sharma W/o Late Praveen Sharma, R/o Flat No.
708, Tower 10, Devika Skypar Rajnagar, Extension
Ghaziabad, U.p.-201017.
2. Smt. Nisha Joshi D/o Late Praveen Sharma, R/o 439
Green Nagar, Behind Aapno Gaon Hotel, Harmada, Jaipur-
302012.
3. Amandeep Sharma S/o Late Praveen Sharma, R/o Flat
No. 708, Tower 10, Devika Skypar Rajnagar, Extension
Ghaziabad, U.p.-201017.
4. Smt. Anusuiya Sharma W/o Late Sitaram, R/o C/o/
Mukesh Sharma, Silver Rock, State Kaali Park, Flat
-3L/b4/5, Tower 5, Rajarhat, P.o. Rajarhat, Gopalpur,
District North 24 Pargana, W.b. 700036.
5. Smt Sharda Vashisth D/o Sitaram, R/o Dd48/purba
Narayantala Baguiati, Rajarhat Gopalpur (M), District
North 24 Pargana, W.b. 700059.
6. Seema Sahal D/o Late Sitaram, R/o C/o Vikram Kumar
Sahal, Bl 5- Flat No. 79, 136 Jesron Road, Avan Oxford
Banger Avenue, District North 24 Pargana, W.b. 700055.
7. Mukesh Sharma S/o Late Sitaram Silver Rock, State Kaali
Park, Flat-3L/b4/5, Tower 5, Rajarhat P.o. Rajarhat,
Gopalpur, District North 24 Pargana, W.b. 700036.
8. Niranjan Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sitaram, R/o Flat No.
01G, Surya Enclave, Opposite India Oil Petrol Pump,
Beltaala Road, Guwahati, Assam 781006.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (2 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]
9. Pradeep Sharma S/o Late Radheyshyam Sharma, R/o
Bhakti Siddhant Apartment, Flat No. 15, General Vaidya
Nagar, Near Iscon Templs, Dwarka, Nasik, Maharastra-
422001.
10. Smt. Urmila D/o Late Radheshyam Sharma, R/o Bhakti
Siddhant Apartment, Flat No. 15, General Vaidya Nagar,
Near Iscon Templs, Dwarka, Nasik, Maharastra-422001.
11. Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Late Radheshyam Sharma, R/o
Bhakti Siddhant Apartment, Flat No. 15, General Vaidya
Nagar, Near Iscon Templs, Dwarka, Nasik, Maharastra-
422001.
12. Pramod Sharma S/o Late Radheshyam Sharma, R/o
Bhakti Siddhant Apartment, Flat No. 15, General Vaidya
Nagar, Near Iscon Templs, Dwarka, Nasik, Maharastra-
422001.
13. Karniram S/o Sh. Dhuraram, R/o Samasfpur, Jhunjhunu
Rajasthan-333001.
14. Deputy Registrar, Jhunjhunu Office, Jhunjhunu-333001.
----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Rajawat
For Respondent(s) :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order
Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 13.02.2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved 13.02.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the operative Full Judgment
part is pronounced
Date of pronouncement 17.02.2026
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge,
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (3 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]Jhunjhunu, whereby upon objections being raised by the Office,
the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to pay requi-
site Court fees on the valuation of sale deed, which has sought to
be declared as ‘null and void’ to the extent of the rights of the
plaintiff-petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has not filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, as he was not
a party to the said instrument. He further submits that as the peti-
tioner is neither an executant nor a party to the sale deed, he is
not required to seek its cancellation. Rather, as per the prayer
clause of the suit, the petitioner has only sought a declaration that
the sale deed be declared ‘null and void’ qua his rights.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
learned trial Court has committed an error while directing the peti-
tioner to pay Court Fees as payable wherein a suit for cancellation
of an instrument is preferred under Section 38 of the Rajasthan
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act of 1961’). In support of his submission, learned counsel
has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors; 2010
(12) SCC 112, held as under:
“6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled,
he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-execu-
tant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declara-
tion that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is
not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for
cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/
conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration
relating to `A’ and `B’ — two brothers. `A’ executes a sale(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (4 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]deed in favour of `C’. Subsequently `A’ wants to avoid the
sale. `A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the
other hand, if `B’, who is not the executant of the deed,
wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the
deed executed by `A’ is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal
and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to
have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the
form is different and court fee is also different. If `A’, the
executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he
has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated
in the sale deed. If `B’, who is a non-executant, is in pos-
session and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or
void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely
pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of
Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B’, a non- executant, is
not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that
the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of
possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as pro-
vided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) pro-
vides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequen-
tial relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the
amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The
proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for
declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference
to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the
value of the property calculated in the manner provided for
by clause (v) of Section 7.
7. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale
deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not
bind the “co-parcenery” and for joint possession. The plain-
tiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds.
Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)
(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were there-
fore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was
to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court
fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in
the sale deeds.”
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (5 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]
4. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Laxminarayan vs Ramswaroop reported in (2017) 4 WLN 98
wherein the Court while distinguishing between a prayer for can-
cellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/con-
veyance observed that in suits for a declaratory decree, the court
fee shall be calculated as per the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of
the Act of 1961. The Court thus, while relying on the case of
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) held as under:
“8. According to the plaint filed by the petitioners, the
disputed property is agricultural land and the petition-
ers are not the executant of the deed, which they
want to be annulled, therefore, it is not necessary for
them to seek cancellation of the deed and it is suffi-
cient for them to seek a declaration that the deed is
invalid or non-est or illegal or that it is not binding on
them. Section 7 of the Act provides for determination
of market value of the property in dispute.
9. According to Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, where rent in respect of such land
has been settled, court fee shall be payable twenty-
five times of the rent rate sanctioned during the last
settlement. According to the plaint averments, the
property in dispute is agricultural land and rent in re-
spect of such land is Rs. 28.72/- and it appears that
the plaintiff petitioners have assessed the market
value of their share in the property by multiplying the
amount of rent with twenty-five times, which is in
conformity with the provisions of the Act. To us,
learned trial Court has wrongly directed the plaintiff-
petitioners to pay the ad-volerm court fees on the
sale consideration recited in the sale deed, as pro-
vided under Section 38 of the Act.”
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (6 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the ma-
terial available on record.
6. Considering the material available on record, this Court finds
that the relief sought in the suit does not pertain to the cancella-
tion of the sale deed. Moreover, the plaintiff-petitioner is not a
party to the instrument in question. It is also evident from the
prayer clause of the suit that the petitioner has confined the relief
to seeking a declaration that the sale deed is “null and void” to the
extent of his rights.
7. Having regard to the observations made in the cases of
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) and Laxminarayan
(supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that in case where the
disputed property is agricultural land and the petitioner is not the
executant of the deed, which he wants to declare as “null and
void” qua his rights, the court fee shall be payable twenty-five
times of the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement, as
provided under Section 7(2)(a) of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the
order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court directing
the petitioner to pay court fees under Section 38 of the Act of
1961, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
8. The learned trial Court is directed to reconsider the matter
and permit the plaintiff to pay such Court fees as payable for a
suit seeking declaration of an instrument as ‘null and void’ and af-
ter taking into consideration the provisions of section 7(2) (a) and
7(2)(b) of the act of 1961.
9. It is made clear that this order is applicable only till
registration of the suit and if after appearance of the defendant in
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7072] (7 of 7) [CW-2794/2026]
the suit, any objection is raised before the Court about court fees,
then the Court will decide it afresh without being influenced by
this order.
10. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition
stands disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J
Sudha/
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 12:13:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:02:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
