Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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.

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

.................

................. 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

Page 6

6

---------------------- “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,

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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.

Page 9

9

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.

Page 10

10

………………………….........J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

…………………………………J.  (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, November 21, 2012