Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 133 of 2019
Revisionist :- Deepa Mathur
Opposite Party :- Hemant Parashar And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kunal Ravi Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Kunal Ravi Singh for the opposite party.
The order impugned in this revision holds that the plaintiff revisionist is required to pay Court fees in his suit for declaring a sale deed dated 15.07.2009, to be null and void, in accordance with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court fees Act.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that since a mere declaration was sought without any consequential relief, the Court fees was liable to be paid in accordance with Article 17(iii) of Schedule-II to the Court Fees Act.
He has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ramkrishan Burman (dead) by his legal representation, 1971 AIR (SC) 87, especially paragraph 5 thereof.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the judgement in Shailendra Bhardwaj and others Vs. Chandra Pal and others, 2013(1) SCC 579, which is a later judgement and has elaborately dealt with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court fees Act, which is a U.P. Amendment.
He has also submits that the impugned order is fully in consonance with the judgement cited by him.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the judgment cited by them.
The suit wherefrom the matter in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Krishan Burman arose was a suit for declaring that a decree in an earlier suit had no effect on the right of the plaintiff. The Apex Court observed that "There is no dispute that the plaintiff claimed a declaration adjudging void the decree in Suit No. 4 of 1950 declaring Radhey Lal to be the "owner in possession of the estate of Dhan Devi."
In paragraph 5, the Apex Court has gone on to observe as follows:-
"A decree for declaration of title to money or other property is not a decree for money or other property. In our judgment the expression "decree for money or other property" means only a decree for recovery of money or other property. It does not include a decree concerning title to money or other property." In the instant case, declaration is sought regarding a sale deed and therefore, the judgment cited by counsel for the revisionist is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the case at hand.
In Shailendra Bhardwaj (supra), the Apex Court not only dealt with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, but also the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 as amended vide U.P. Act No. 7 of 1939. Thereafter, it was observed that in case there exists no other provision under the Court Fees Act, a suit involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable a will or sale deed, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II shall be applicable for computing the Court Fees payable. However, if such relief is covered by any other provision of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable.
It also went on to hold as follows:
"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."
Under the circumstance and since the suit filed by counsel for the revisionist is for declaring a sale to be void, which is an instrument securing money or other property having market value, the impugned order rightly holds that the court fees is liable to be computed in accordance with Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act.
The impugned order therefore, suffers from no jurisdictional error or illegality that would justify interference.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 RKM
Digitally signed by Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra Date: 2019.10.16 16:02:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad