The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical procedural principle in civil litigation: when a plaintiff denies being a party to a sale deed and alleges it is forged, the suit must be valued for court fees based on the nature of the plea, not the monetary value of the property. This decision reinforces the distinction between challenging a deed as an executant versus seeking a declaration of invalidity as a non-executant.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Ramkumar Purohit, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that two sale deeds dated 09.01.2024, executed in favor of the defendant Bharat Tiwari, were forged and fabricated, and therefore not binding on him. He also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the plaintiff, as a party to the sale deeds, was required to value the suit at the sale consideration of Rs. 14,55,000 and pay ad-valorem court fees accordingly.
Key Facts
- The sale deeds dated 09.01.2024 purportedly transferred property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 14,55,000
- The plaintiff claimed he did not execute the deeds and that his signature and thumb impression were forged
- The plaintiff valued the relief for declaration at 20 times the land revenue (Rs. 232), paying a fixed court fee of Rs. 500
- For the injunction relief, he valued it at Rs. 1,000 and paid Rs. 120 as court fee
- The defendant contended the plaintiff was a party to the deeds and thus liable for ad-valorem fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act
- The plaintiff denied any knowledge of or consent to the deeds and asserted he was not a signatory
Procedural History
- 09.01.2024: Sale deeds executed, allegedly involving the plaintiff
- Date unspecified: Suit filed by plaintiff in Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Datia
- 15.10.2025: Trial Court rejected defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, upholding plaintiff’s valuation and fixed court fees
- 20.10.2025: Defendant filed Misc. Petition No. 790 of 2026 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
- 29.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Ashish Shroti
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner/Defendant
- Argued that the plaintiff is a party to the sale deeds, as evidenced by his name appearing in the documents
- Relied on Rajesh Kumar (deleted) through LRs(A) Smt. Lalli & Ors. v. Mangal Singh (deleted) through LRs. Bhagwa Singh & Ors., M.P. No. 655/2021, where the court held that even if a party claims coercion, if he is a signatory, ad-valorem fees apply
- Contended that the plaintiff’s intent to nullify the deeds makes the suit equivalent to a cancellation suit, requiring ad-valorem fees
For the Respondent/Plaintiff
- Maintained that the deeds are forged and fabricated, and he never signed or consented to them
- Cited Saya Jeet v. Balle Singh & Ors., 2014(4) MPLJ 573, where the court held that if a document is alleged to be forged and the plaintiff denies being a party, fixed court fee applies
- Emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 CPC requires examination of plaint averments only, not extrinsic evidence
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court’s order dated 15.10.2025, and direction to the trial court to reject the plaint for insufficient court fees. The plaintiff sought continuation of the suit on the existing valuation and court fees.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a plaintiff who alleges that a sale deed is forged and denies being a party to it is required to pay ad-valorem court fees based on the sale consideration, or whether a fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act suffices.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Rajesh Kumar to argue that when a person is a signatory or executant to a deed, even if he later claims coercion or forgery, the court must treat the suit as one for cancellation, requiring ad-valorem fees. He contended that the plaintiff’s prayer to declare the deeds null and void is functionally equivalent to cancellation, and the valuation must reflect the property’s value. He further argued that the plaintiff’s denial of signature is a matter for trial, not for determining court fees at the pleading stage.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel relied on Saya Jeet and the Supreme Court’s decision in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 112, to argue that the nature of the relief determines the court fee. Where the plaintiff is not a party to the deed and seeks only a declaration that it is void or non-binding, the fixed fee applies. He emphasized that the plaint explicitly denies the plaintiff’s involvement and that Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits no inquiry beyond the pleadings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the settled principle that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine only the averments in the plaint, not the truth or veracity of the allegations. As held in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331, the valuation and court fee are determined solely on the face of the plaint.
The Court then turned to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suhrid Singh, which clearly distinguishes between a suit for cancellation by an executant and a suit for declaration by a non-executant. The Court quoted the judgment:
"If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non est/illegal and he is not bound by it, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act."
The Court noted that the plaintiff in the present case had specifically pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint that the sale deeds were forged and fabricated, and that he was not a party to them. The defendant failed to point to any admission by the plaintiff in the plaint that he had signed or consented to the deeds.
The Court distinguished Rajesh Kumar on factual grounds: in that case, the plaintiff admitted his thumb impression was on the deed, even if he claimed it was obtained fraudulently. Here, the plaintiff categorically denied any involvement. The Court held that the mere presence of a name in a forged document does not make one a party for court fee purposes if the plaint denies it.
The Court further endorsed the reasoning in Saya Jeet, where a similar factual matrix led to the conclusion that a forged document, denied by the plaintiff, cannot trigger ad-valorem fees. The Court observed:
"When the document in question is alleged to be forged and fabricated, as such the document in question is a misrepresentation of fraud as regard its character as well as its contents and therefore, is void document. Hence, the plaintiff is required to pay fixed Court fees and not the ad valorem Court fees..."
The Court concluded that the trial court correctly applied the law and that interference at this stage was unwarranted. However, it directed that if, upon evidence, the plaintiff’s claim of non-participation is found false, he shall be liable to pay the deficit court fees, and the trial court must frame a specific issue on this point.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 15.10.2025, affirming that the plaintiff’s suit, based on allegations of forgery and denial of party status, was correctly valued and subject to fixed court fees under Article 17(iii) of the Court Fees Act. The Court directed the trial court to frame a specific issue on whether the plaintiff is indeed a party to the sale deeds, and if the plaintiff’s denial is disproved at trial, he shall be liable to pay the deficit court fees.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fixed Court Fee Applies to Non-Executants Alleging Forgery
- Practitioners must now plead clearly that the plaintiff denies execution or signature to qualify for fixed court fees under Article 17(iii)
- A mere allegation of forgery without denial of party status will not suffice - the plaint must explicitly state non-participation
- If the plaintiff admits any involvement (e.g., "I signed but was coerced"), ad-valorem fees apply, as per Rajesh Kumar
Pleadings Control Court Fee Determination
- Courts must not look beyond the plaint when deciding court fee under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Evidence on authenticity of signatures is irrelevant at this stage - it is a matter for trial
- Defendants seeking to challenge court fees must show clear admission of party status in the plaint, not merely the presence of the plaintiff’s name in the document
Trial Courts Must Frame Specific Issues on Authenticity
- If a plaintiff denies being a party to a deed, the trial court must frame a specific issue on the authenticity of signature or thumb impression
- This preserves the defendant’s right to seek deficit court fees if the plaintiff’s denial is later disproved
- Failure to frame such an issue may bar recovery of deficit fees at a later stage
