Back
2007 Supreme(All) 428
TARUN AGARWALA, J.
Suresh and Ors.
Versus
Chand and Ors.
W.P.Nos.311 and 25926 of 2005
Decided On : 22-2-2007.
C.S. Agnihotri and I.K. Chaturvedi, for Petitioners; Shyamal Narain, R.R. Pandey and Bala Krishna Narayana, for Respondents.
The payment of court fee is dependent entirely upon the averments made in the plaint and relief claimed. The suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed required court fee payment under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act, as it was a suit filed for obtaining a declaratory decree with a consequential relief.
Headnote:
Court Fees Act - Declaration of Ownership - Section 7(iv-A), Article 17(iii) - The court examined the contradictory orders of the trial court regarding the payment of court fees for the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The court referred to relevant case laws and provisions of the Court Fees Act, concluding that the suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed required court fee payment under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Act, and not under Section 7(iv-A) or Article 17(iii). The orders of the trial court, appellate court, and revisional court were quashed, and the amendment application was allowed for fresh consideration of the issue.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a declaration of half ownership of a property based on a registered Will and later sought the cancellation of a sale deed executed by the respondent. The trial court issued contradictory orders regarding the payment of court fees for the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed required court fee payment under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act, and not under Section 7(iv-A) or Article 17(iii). The orders of the trial court, appellate court, and revisional court were quashed, and the amendment application was allowed for fresh consideration of the issue.
Issues: The contradictory orders of the trial court regarding the payment of court fees, the applicability of different provisions of the Court Fees Act, and the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The payment of court fee is dependent entirely upon the averments made in the plaint and relief claimed. The suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed required court fee payment under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Act, as it was a suit filed for obtaining a declaratory decree with a consequential relief.
Final Decision: The orders of the trial court, appellate court, and revisional court were quashed, and the amendment application was allowed for fresh consideration of the issue. The petitions were allowed with no order as to cost.
2. The trial Court framed issue No.2 with regard to the sufficiency of the court fee. The trial Court, by an order dated 28-5-2004, found that the petitioners had valued the plaint at Rs.1.00 lac, whereas, the valuation of the property, as per the sale deed, was Rs.5,20,000=00. The trial Court, also found, that the court fee was required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in the State of U.P. The trial Court accordingly directed the plaintiff to file an appropriate amendment application for the amendment of its plaint. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal which was rejected.
Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had preferred an appeal against the order dated 28-5-2004, the petitioners filed an amendment application praying for the deletion of paragraph No.8 of the plaint and for substituting it with a fresh paragraph indicating the value of the plaint at Rs.2,60,000/- and a court fee of Rs.200/-. The valuation of Rs.2,60,000/- was shown on the ground that the sale deed indicated the value of the total property at Rs.5,20,000/- and that since the plaintiffs were claiming to be the half owners, consequently, the valuation was shown at Rs.2,60,000/-. The court fee was indicated in accordance with the provisions of Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
3. The trial Court, by an order dated 10-8-2004, rejected the amendment application on the ground that the amendment was not in consonance with its earlier order dated 28-5-2004 and that, the court fee was not in accordance with the provision of S.7(iv-A)and that the court fee, payable for the second relief, namely, for the cancellation of the sale deed, was required to be paid in accordance with the provision of Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act. The petitioners filed a revision which was also rejected. Consequently, two writ petitions have been filed before this Court and both the petitions are being decided together.
4. Heard Sri C.S. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyamal Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the two orders of the trial Court are contradictory in nature. The trial Court held that for the first relief, the court fee was required to be paid in accordance with the provision of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act and for the second relief, the court fee was required to be paid under Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act, and therefore, the said orders are contradictory in nature. Further, according to the petitioners, the Court fee was only required to be paid under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act, since the petitioners had only filed a suit for a declaration.
6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Shefali Roy v. Hero Jaswant Dass and others, AIR 1992 All. 254: (1992 All LJ 728), in which it was held that in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and that the alleged sale deed was null and void, the court fee was payable under Article 17(iii) of the Court Fees Act and that the court fee, under Section 7(iv-A), was not payable.
7. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision in Smt.Sabina alias Farida v.
