JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8196 OF 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10958 of 2012] Shailendra Bhardwaj & Others .. Appellants
Versus
Chandra Pal & Another .. Respondents
J U
D
G
M
E N
T
K.
S.
Radhakrishnan,J.
1.
Leave granted.
2. The short question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a suit filed seeking a declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting their cancellation, will fall under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938) [for short ‘the U.P. Amendment
JUDGMENT
Act’] or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation.
3. Civil Suit No. 230 of 2006 was filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Hathras, U.P. seeking the following reliefs:
“(A) Decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, declare null and void and invalid of the forged will dated 21.3.2003 and sale deed dated 12.1.2005 and cancel and its information sent to the office of Registrar Hathras. (B) That the cost of the Suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (C) That any other cost which may deem fit by the Hon’ble Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of Justice.”
4. The suit property was valued and the cost of the property was fixed at Rs.30,00,000/- and the Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fee Act. The question arose before the trial Court whether the plaintiff had properly valued the suit and the court fee paid. The trial Court took the view that the plaintiff should have paid the court fee as per Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. The matter was taken up before the High Court. The High Court concurred with the views taken by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 15.12.2011, against which this appeal has been preferred.
JUDGMENT
5. Shri Viresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the suit be valued and an ad valorem court fee be paid under Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had correctly valued the suit and proper court fee was paid in accordance with Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. Considerable reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others [(2010) 12 SCC 12] and contended that the Court fee need be paid only on the plaint averments.
6. Shri M. R. Shamshad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court has come to the correct conclusion that even though no consequential reliefs was prayed for, still as per the U.P. Amendment Act, plaintiff will have to pay the court fee under Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had valued the suit without noticing the fact that the State of U.P. had amended the Court Fee Act by Act XIX of 1938 and in terms of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fee has to be commuted according to the value of the subject matter and an ad valorem court fee has to be paid. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment of this Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) is not
JUDGMENT
applicable to the facts of the present case and this Court had no occasion to consider the scope of the U.P. State amendment in that judgment.
7. We may, for proper appreciation of the various contentions raised by the parties, refer to the provisions of the Court Fees Act as well as Court Fees Act as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, which will give a correct picture of the changes made by the U.P. Amendment Act on the Court Fees Act. An operative chart of the Court Fees Act and the U.P. Amendment Act is given below:
Court Fees Act As per UP Amendment Act (19 of 1938) “7. Computation of fees
payable
in
certain
suits:
The amount of fee payable
under this Act in the suits
next
hereinafter
mentioned
shall
be
computed as follows:
....................
....................
(iv) In Suits –
....................
....................
For declaratory decree
and consequent relief-
.........(a) .....
.........(b)......
For a declaratory decree
and consequential relief
(c) to obtain a declaratory
decree or order, where
consequential
relief
is
prayed,
“7. Computation of fees
payable
in
certain
suits for money:
The amount of fee
payable under this Act in
the suits next hereinafter
mentioned
shall
be
computed as follows:
....................
....................
For
declaratory
decree
with consequential relief –
(iv) in Suits-
(a)
to
obtain
a
declaratory decree or
order,
where
consequential
relief
other
than
relief
specified
in
sub-
section
(iv-A)
is
prayed;
For
cancellation
or
JUDGMENT
.................
.................
According
to
the
amount
at
which
the
relief
sought
is
valued
in
the
plaint
or
memorandum
of
appeal.
adjudging
void
instruments and decrees
– (iv-A) in suit for or
involving cancellation of or
adjudging void or voidable a
decree for money or other
property having a market
value,
or
an
instrument
securing
money
or
other
property having such value:
(1)
Where the plaintiff
or his predecessor-
in-title was a party to
the
decree
or
the
instrument,
according
to
the
value of the subject
matter, and
(2)
Where he or his
predecessor-in-title
was not party to the
decree or instrument,
according to one-fifth
of the value of the
subject-matter,
and
such value shall be
deemed to be-
If the whole decree
or
instrument
is
involved in the suit,
the
amount
for
which or value of
the
property
in
respect of which the
decree was passed
or the instrument
executed,
and
if
only a part of the
decree
or
instrument
is
involved in the suit,
the
amount
or
value
of
the
property to which
such part relates.
Explanation – ‘the value
JUDGMENT
----------------------
“Schedule II
Article 17
Plaint or
memorandum of appeal in
each of the following suits:
..................
..................
(iii) To obtain a declaratory
decree
where
no
consequential
relief
is
prayed.
of the property’ for the
purposes of this sub section,
shall be the market-value,
which
in
the
case
of
immovable property shall be
deemed to be the value as
computed in accordance with
sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-
B), as the case may be.”
-------------------------
“Schedule II
Article 17
Plaint or
memorandum of appeal in
each of the following suits:
..................
..................
(iii) To obtain a declaratory
decree
where
no
consequential
relief
is
prayed in any suit, not
otherwise
provided
for
by
this
act;
8. We may also indicate that the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 in terms of which the suits have to be valued for the purpose of Court Fees Act has also been amended vide U.P. Act 7 of 1939 (w.e.f. 16.7.1939) and the difference in both the Acts are given below:
Suits Valuation Act, 1887(Central Act) Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Amended provision in the State of U.P.] 4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land not to exceed the value of the land- Where a suit mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7,
4. Valuation of certain
suits for the purposes of
jurisdiction
–
Suits
mentioned in paragraphs IV
(a), IVA, IVB, V, VA, VB, VI,
VIA;
VIII
and
X(d)
of
Section 7 and Articles 17,
JUDGMENT
paragraph IV, or Schedule
II, Article 17, relates to land
or an interest in land of
which the value has been
determined by rules under
the last foregoing section,
the amount at which for
purposes of jurisdiction the
relief sought in the suit is
value shall not exceed the
value of the land or interest
as
determined
by
those
rules.
18 and 19 of the Schedule
II of the Court-Fees Act,
1870, as in force for the
time being in the Uttar
Pradesh, shall be valued for
the purposes of jurisdiction
at the market value of the
property
involved
in
or
affected by or the title to
which is affected by the
reliefs sought, and
such
value
shall,
in
the
case
of
land,
be
deemed
to
be
the
value
as
detgerminable
in
accordance
with
the
rules
framed
under
Section
3 ” .
[Vide U.P. Act 7 of 1939.
Section
3
(w.e.f.
16.07.1939].
9. On comparing the above mentioned provisions, it is clear that Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act makes it clear that this article is applicable in cases where plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without consequential reliefs and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. If there is no other provision under the Court Fees Act in case of a suit involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable a will or sale deed on the question of payment of court
JUDGMENT
fees, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II shall be applicable. But if such relief is covered by any other provisions of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable. On a comparison between the Court Fees Act and the U.P. Amendment Act, it is clear that Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act covers suits for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument securing money or other property having such value. The suit, in this case, was filed after the death of the testator and, therefore, the suit property covered by the will has also to be valued. Since Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply. The U.P. Amendment Act, therefore, is applicable in the present case, despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed. Consequently, in terms of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be commuted according to the value of the subject matter and the trial Court as well as the High Court have correctly held so.
10. We are of the view that the decision of this Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
JUDGMENT
First of all, this Court had no occasion to examine the scope of the U.P. Amendment Act. That was a case in which this Court was dealing with Section 7(iv)(c), (v) and Schedule II Article 17(iii), as amended in the State of Punjab. The position that we get in the State of Punjab is entirely different from the State of U.P. and the effect of the U.P. Amendment Act was not an issue which arose for consideration in that case. Consequently, in our view, the said judgment would not apply to the present case.
11. Plaintiff, in the instant case, valued the suit at Rs.30 Lakhs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, for the purpose of court fee, the plaintiff paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. Plaintiff had not noticed the fact that the above mentioned article stood amended by the State, by adding the words “not otherwise provided by this Act”. Since Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amended Act specifically provides for payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable an instrument securing property having money value, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act shall not be applicable.
12. For the reasons abovementioned, the appeal lacks in merits and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
………………………….........J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………………J. (Dipak Misra) New Delhi, November 21, 2012