Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) IMPLORING annulment of the impugned order dated 12th of January, 2015, petitioner -defendants have laid this revision petition under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). By the order impugned, Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara camp Gangapur has rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a suit for declaration that gift -deed dated 28th March 2001 is null and void.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent -plaintiff instituted a civil suit against petitioners seeking declaration that the alleged gift -deed executed by her so called power of attorney Shri Sanwant Singh, first petitioner, in favour of his biological son second respondent Lavdev Singh Rathore for 1/4th part of agricultural land of Khasra No. 1692 may be declared null and void as she has never given power of attorney to the first petitioner and therefore the gift -deed is a spurious document. In the plaint, it is specifically averred that at no point of time respondent has appointed first petitioner as her power of attorney and as such he was not authorized to execute any gift -deed on her behalf. Alleging direct nexus between both the petitioners, respondent -plaintiff has averred in the plaint that this entire dubious transaction is brainchild of the first petitioner to deprive her from her agricultural land. Proving nexus between both the petitioners, respondent -plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that both are father and son and therefore the entire transaction is collusive which has not conferred any right, title or interest in favour of second respondent and the same is therefore liable to be declared as null and void. Resisting the suit of the respondent -plaintiff, on behalf of petitioner, an endeavor was made for rejection of the plaint by laying application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC, alleging therein that the suit is undervalued and the respondent -plaintiff has not paid the requisite court -fees as per market value of the property. The application is contested by the respondent -plaintiff with a specific denial about her executing power of attorney in favour of first petitioner and authorizing him to execute a gift -deed. Showing direct nexus between both the petitioners, as they are father and son, the respondent -plaintiff has categorically averred in the return that this entire dubious transaction is outcome of a conspiracy hatched by both to deprive respondent -plaintiff from her property. A specific fact is pleaded in the reply that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court -fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act of 1961') is not applicable and the lis involved in the suit is governed by Section 24(a) of the Act of 1961.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;