JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal was heard and decided on 29th April, 2014. As none had appeared for appellant, Shri R.K. Mishra, counsel for respondent No.1 to 6/plaintiffs has entered appearance. This Court has decided the appeal on merits. 2. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition bearing No.253/2014 seeking review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on the premise that on the day, the appeal was posted for consideration, counsel for the appellant Shri Ashish Shrivastava was on adjustment and in absence of the appellant or his counsel, appeal could not have been decided on merits. At the most, it could have been dismissed in default in light of provisions as contained in Order XLI rule 7 CPC. 3. Notices in that review petition were issued on 10.7.2014 and thereafter on 10.10.2014, after hearing counsel for appellant and respondents, the review petition was allowed with further direction that judgment and decree dated 29.4.2014 passed in Second Aappeal No.37/2011 is recalled and consequently, second appeal is restored to its original number for further orders. 4. This is how the instant second appeal is put up after restoration before this Court. 5. This appeal by the defendant No. 2 is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2008 by the Additional District Judge, Ambah, District Morena, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/2008 by Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambah, District Morena. By the impugned judgment, plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 6. During the Course of hearing, the solitary ground raised by appellant is related to valuation of the suit. It is submitted that sale deed shows the amount of consideration to be Rs.1,76,700/-; however, the valuation of the suit was not in accordance with the amount of consideration shown in the sale deed, as a result, the Civil Judge, Class I had no jurisdiction to try the suit and declare the sale deed as null ans void for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 7. To address upon the aforesaid issue, it is considered apposite to refer to nature of relief claimed in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title ans permanent injunction with respect to certain parcels of agricultural lands as described in para 2 of the plaint. 7. To address upon the aforesaid issue, it is considered apposite to refer to nature of relief claimed in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title ans permanent injunction with respect to certain parcels of agricultural lands as described in para 2 of the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is an ancestral property of joint ownership and possession. Relief claimed in para 17 is of the nature of declaration and to the effect that plaintiffs be declared as joint owner and in joint possesion over 6/7 part of the suit land. The suit property is ancestral Hindu undivided family property. With further relief that sale deed dated 7.6.2007 allegedly executed by Mahadev s/o Dashrath Singh (Defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2 Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Mansingh be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, therefore, there is no right, title or interest is transferred in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit land with further relief of the nature of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.2 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and not to transfer the suit land or seek mutation in revenue record or effect transfer of suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 7.6.2007. 8. Follwing facts are culled out displayed from the averments made in the plaint and relief sought :- (i) plaintiffs have claimed the suit land to be undivided ancestral property in the joint ownership and possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.1; (ii) the sale deed dated 7.6.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is sought to be declared as null and void; (iii) plaintiffs have not either executed the sale deed or are party to the same; (iv) permanent injunction is sought against defendant No.2 not to further create right of transfer on the strength of alleged sale deed and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in respsct of suit land; (v) in paras 15 of the plaint, the valuation of the suit for declaration has been done on the basis of 20 times of land revenue and for permanent injunction separate valuation has been done. 9. Defendant No.2/appellant contested the suit asserting that suit land was self acquired land of defendant No.1 and not the ancestral property as alleged in the plaint. 9. Defendant No.2/appellant contested the suit asserting that suit land was self acquired land of defendant No.1 and not the ancestral property as alleged in the plaint. Therefore, the defendant No.1 has exclusive right, title and interest upon the suit land, hence, competent to transfer the title therof in favour of defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 7.6.2007. Besides in para 15 to 22 of the written statement. it is contended that the suit should have been valued on the basis of consideration of sale deed and ad valorem court-fees was required to be paid, therefore, the Court lack pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 10. On such pleadings, trial Court framed issue No.4 and 5 amongst other issues to the effect that:- 4- D;k oknhx.k us foØ;i= ds ewy ds vuqokn okn dk ewY;akdu ugha djrs gq, de ewY;kadu fd;k gS \ 5- D;k oknh us okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj i;kZIr U;k;’kqYd vnk fd;k gS \ and death with the same in para 8 of the judgment and while dealing with the objection had held that the relief claimed in the suit that the sale deed 7.6.2007 to which the plaintiff is not a party be held to be not binding upon him and further relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 to seek transfer of land/mutation in her name in the revenue records and restraining defendant No.2 not to interfere with the possession of plaintiff, have not been found consequential relief to the main relief, therefore, the objection as regards valuation done in sale deed and payment of ad valorem court-fees has been rejected. 11. On appeal, first appellate Court again considered the entire evidence and confirmed the aforesaid findings in paras 19 and 20 that apart, in the backdrop of the averments made in the plaint, nature of relief sought, it is evident that plaintiff has not sought relief of cancellation of sale deed with consequential relief of possession. The plaintiffs have claimed joint ownership and possession along with defendant No.1 claiming themselves to be in possession. Aforesaid claims have been found proved by both the Courts below. 12. The law as regards valuation of suit and payment of court-fees particularly with regard to section 7 of the court-fees Act is well settled by Hon. Supreme Court in it’s authoritative pronouncement in the matter of S. Rm. Ar. S. SP. Santhappa Chettiar v. S.Rm.Ar. Rm. Aforesaid claims have been found proved by both the Courts below. 12. The law as regards valuation of suit and payment of court-fees particularly with regard to section 7 of the court-fees Act is well settled by Hon. Supreme Court in it’s authoritative pronouncement in the matter of S. Rm. Ar. S. SP. Santhappa Chettiar v. S.Rm.Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 . Para 14 of the Same reads as under:- “14. The question which still remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was justified in directing the appellant to pay Court fees both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the valuation for Rs.15,00,000. In our opinion, the appellant is justified in contending that this order is erroneous in law. Section 7, sub-section (iv)(b) deals with suits to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property and the amount of fees payable on paints in such suits is “according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.” Section 7 further provides that in all suits falling under section 7(iv) the plaintiff shall state the amount at which the value of the relief is sought. If the scheme laid down for the comutation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-section of section 7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-section (iv) a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the palintiff to value his claim for the purpose of court-fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in which the palintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficuly to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. Take for instance the claim for partition where the plaintiff seeks to enforce his right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect of which a share is claimed is joint family property. In other words, it is property in which the plaintiff has an undivided share. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect of which a share is claimed is joint family property. In other words, it is property in which the plaintiff has an undivided share. What the plaintiff purports to do by making a claim for partition is to ask the Court to give hime certain specified properties separately and absolutely on his own account for his share in Iieu of his undivided share in the whole property. Now it would be clear that the conversion of the plaintiff’s alleged undivided share in the joint family property into his separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of rupees with any precision or definiteness. That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court-fees. It really means that in suits falling under section 7(iv) (b) the amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the Court in computing the court-fees payable in respect the said relief. In the circumstances of this case it is unnecessary to consider whether, under the provisions of this section, the plaintiff has been given and absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his relief.” 13. In the instant case, suit land is an agricultural land, therefore, relief claimed is that sale deed dated 7.6.2007 be declared null and void. plaintiffs were not party to the sale deed and defendant No.2 be restrained from seeking mutation in revenue records on the strength of sale deed. Suit land is claimed to be of the joint ownership and possession of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Under such circumstances, the suit has rightly be vlaued at 20 times of land revenue and for permanent injunction separate valuation has been done. Plaintiffs are not liable for valuing the suit at the valuation shown in the sale deed which may otherwise has been found to be null and void for want of consideration being passed on defendant No.1 by both the Courts below. Even otherwise both the Courts below have dealt with issues on merits and recorded concurrent findings of fact. Thus, the Courts below have found that alleged sale deed neither was executed for any legal necessity nor to discharge any family liability. Even otherwise both the Courts below have dealt with issues on merits and recorded concurrent findings of fact. Thus, the Courts below have found that alleged sale deed neither was executed for any legal necessity nor to discharge any family liability. No consideration has been passed on. Hence, alleged sale deed has been found to be null and void. Admittedly as the possession over the suit land continued to be with the plaintiffs who are doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereon, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the Courth below have decreed the suit declaring that plaintiffs No.1 to 6 along with defendant No.1 entitled for equal shares by holding them joint owners and in joint possession of the suit property. Further the defendant No.2 has been restrained from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land not to create any third party rights or seek protection under M.P. Land Revenue Code. 14. Having perused the impugned judgments and record of Courts below, in the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have not committed any error of law in dismissing the suit on concurrent findings of fact which are in fact and in effect in the realm of facts and do not warrant any interference under section 100 of CPC by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arised is this appeal. The appeal sans merits. is hereby dismissed. 15. Judgments cited by learned counsel for appellant are distinguishable on facts and are of no assistance to the controversy involved in the instant case.