Supreme Court of India
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ & OTHERSversusCHANDRA PAL & ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 527
- Decided
- 21 November 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that where a suit seeks cancellation or adjudication of a void instrument, the court fee must be computed under Section 7(iv‑A) of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, and Article 17(iii) of Schedule II does not apply.
Summary
The appellant filed a civil suit after the testator's death seeking a declaration that a will dated 21‑03‑2003 and a sale deed dated 12‑01‑2005 were forged and should be declared null and void, along with their cancellation. The suit property was valued at Rs 30,00,000, but the plaintiff paid a fixed court fee of Rs 200 under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court held that the fee should instead be computed on the basis of the value of the subject matter under Section 7(iv‑A) of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938). On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a suit for cancellation of a will and sale deed falls within Section 7(iv‑A) or whether Article 17(iii) applies, and also considered the relevance of Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh. The Court held that Section 7(iv‑A) of the U.P. Amendment Act governs such suits, rendering Article 17(iii) inapplicable, and that the earlier Suhrid Singh decision was not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the fee must be paid on an ad valorem basis as per Section 7(iv‑A).
Issues considered
- Whether a suit seeking declaration of a will and sale deed as void and their cancellation falls under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, requiring fee based on the value of the subject matter.
- Whether Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 applies to such a suit where no consequential relief is claimed.
- Whether the decision in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 12 is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Court Fees Act, 1870s. Schedule II Article 17(iii)
- Suits Valuation Act, 1887s. Section 4
- Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938)s. Section 7(iv-A)
Subjects
Court feesDeclaratory decreeCancellation of willU.P. Amendment ActSection 7(iv-A)Article 17 Schedule IIValuation of suitCivil procedure
Judgment
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 1125
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ & OTHERS A
v.
CHANDRA PAL & ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 21, 2012
B
[K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
COURT FEES ACT, 1870:
s.7(iv-A) and Articles 17(iii) as amended by U.P. Act, 19 c
of 1938 - Suit for declaration of a will and a sale deed as null
and void and for cancellation thereof - Court fee payable -
Held: The suit having been filed after death of testator, suit
property covered by the will has to be valued - Since s. 7(iv-
A) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that D
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 - Consequently, in terms of
s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to
be computed according to the value of the subject matter and E
tn"al court as well as High Court have correctly held so.
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of a will and
a sale as null and void and to cancel the same. The suit
property was valued at Rs. 30,00,0001- but the fixed court F
fee of Rs. 2001- was paid under Article 17(iii) of Schedule
II to the Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court held that the
plaintiff should have paid the court fee as per s.17(iv-A)
of the U. P. Amendment Act. The High Court upheld the
said order. G
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration
before the Court was: whether a suit filed seeking a
declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting
1125 H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R.
A their cancellation, will fall u/s. 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees
Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act (Act
XIX of 1938) or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court
Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
8
HELD: 1.1. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court
Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in cases where the plaintiff
seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any
consequential relief and there is no other provision under
C the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. 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. The suit, in the instant case, was filed after
the death of the testator and, therefore, the suit property
D covered by the will has also to be valued. The plaintiff
valued the suit at Rs.30 Lakhs for the purpose of
pecuniary jurisdiction. However, he paid a fixed court fee
of Rs.200/- under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court
Fees Act. He had not noticed the fact that the said Article
E stood amended by the State, by adding the words "not
otherwise provided by this Act". Since s. 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
F 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, despite the fact
that no consequential relief has been claimed.
Consequently, in terms of s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P.
Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed
G according to the value of the subject matter and the trial
court as well as the High Court have correctly held so.
[Para 10-11] [1133-B-D-E-G; 1134-C-E]
Suh rid Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others (2010) 12
H SCC 12 - held inapplicable
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1127
Case Law Reference: A
(2010) 12 sec 12 held inapplicable Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8196 of 2012.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FA No. 242 of 2011.
Viresh Kumar Yadav, Md. Farman for the Appellant.
M.R. Shamshad, Shashank Singh, Gaurav Agarwal for the C
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
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 E
short 'the U.P. Amendment 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:
F
"(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. G
(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
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R.
A 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.
8
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
C concurred with the views taken by the trial Court and dismissed
the appeal on 15.12.2011, against which this appeal has been
preferred.
5. Shri Viresh K1,1mar Yadav, learned counsel appearing
o 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
E 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 sec 12) and contended that the Court fee need be
paid only on the plaint averments.
F 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
G Section ?(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
H to the value of the subject matter and an ad valorem court fee
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1129
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
has to be paid. Learned counsel also submitted that the A
judgment of this Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) is not 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.
8
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 C
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)
D
"7. Computation of fees "7. Computation of fees
payable in certain payable in certain
suits: suits for money:
The amount of fee
The amount of fee
payable under this Act E
payable under this Act in
in the suits next
the suits next hereinafter
hereinafter mentioned
mentioned shall be
shall be computed as
computed as follows:
follows:
F
(iv) In Suits - For declaratory
decree with
consequential relief G
- (iv) in Suits-
For declaratory decree (a) to obtain a declaratory
and consequent relief- decree or order, where
consequential relief
other than relief H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R.
A ......... (a) .... . specified in sub-
section (iv-A) is
......... (b) ..... . prayed;
For a declaratory decree For cancellation or
and consequential relief adjudging void
B (c) to obtain a declaratory instruments and
decree or order, where decrees - (iv-A) in suit
consequential relief is for or involving
prayed, cancellation of or
adjudging void or
c voidable a decree for
money or other property
having a market value,
According to the amount or an instrument
at which the relief sought securing money or other
D is valued in the plaint or property having such
memorandum of appeal. value:
(1) Where the plaintiff or
his predecessor-in-title
was a party to the
E decree or the instrument,
according to the value of
the subject matter, and
(2) Where he or his
predecessor-in-title was
F not party to the decree or
instrument, according to
one-fifth of the value of
the subject-matter, and
such value shall be
G deemed to be-
lt the whole decree or
instrument is involved in
the suit, the amount for
which or value of the
H
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1131
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
property in respect of A
which the decree was
passed or the instrument
executed, and if only a
part of the decree or
instrument is involved in B
the suit, the amount or
value of the property to
which such part relates.
Explanation - 'the
value of the property' c
for the purposes of this
sub section, shall be the
mar1<et-value, which in the
case of immovable
property shall be deemed D
to be the value as
computed in accordance
with sub-section (v), (v-A)
or (v-B), as the case may
be." E
"Schedule II
"Schedule II Article 17 Plaint or
Article 17 Plaint or memorandum of appeal F
memorandum of appeal in in each of the following
each of the following suits: suits:
(iii) To obtain a declaratory G
decree where no
(iii) To obtain a declaratory consequential relief is
decree where no prayed in any suit, not
consequential relief is otherwise provided for
prayed. by this act; H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 7of1939
(w.e.f. 16.7.1939) and the difference in both the Acts are given
below:
8
Suits Valuation Act, 1887 Suits Valuation Act, 1887
(Central Act) [Amended provision in
the State of U.P.J
4. Valuation of relief in 4. Valuation of certain
c certain suits relating to suits for the purposes of
land not to exceed the jurisdiction - Suits
value of the land- mentioned in paragraphs IV
Where a suit mentioned in (a), IVA, IVB, V, VA, VB, VI,
the Court Fees Act, 1870 VIA; VIII and X(d) of Section
D (7 of 1870), Section 7, 7 and Articles 17, 18 and 19
paragraph IV, or Schedule of the Schedule II of the
II, Article 17, relates to land Court-Fees Act, 1870, as in
or an interest in land of force for the time being in the
which the value has been Uttar Pradesh, shall be
E determined by rules under valued for the purposes of
the last foregoing section, jurisdiction at the market
the amount at which for value of the property
purposes of jurisdiction the involved in or affected by or
relief sought in the suit is the title to which is affected
F value shall not exceed the by the reliefs sought, and
value of the land or interest such value shall. in the case
as determined by those of land. be deemed to be the
rules. value as detgerminable in
accordance with the rules
G framed under Section 3".
[Vide U.P. Act 7 of 1939
Section 3 (w.e.f. 16.07.1939]
H
SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1133
{K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
9. On comparing the above mentioned provisions, it is A
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 B
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 c
involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable
a will or sale deed on the question of payment of court 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 0
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 E
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 moneyor an instrument, Article 17(iii) F
of Sci .ddule 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 G
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 H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R.
A case. First ofall, 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
s 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
C 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
D 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
E 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.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Court fees"Sign in to search