Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad on 23rd December, 2006 enhancing the amount of Court-fees, on the basis of market value of the property, to the tune of rupees twenty five Crores.

2. Since the parties arrived at a consensus for hearing the matter on informal papers, as all materials are available on record and the dispute is confined to Court-fees only, we have heard the appeal on contest at the admission stage.

3. Fact remains that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for injunction upon payment of appropriate Court-fees. An interim application was also made by the plaintiff/appellant to that extent. However, upon issuance of notice, the defendants/respondents appeared and filed an objection to such application annexing allegedly forged and fabricated documents i.e. agreement for sale, power of attorney and sale deed etc. which were not executed by the plaintiff/appellant. At that stage, the plaintiff/appellant was compelled to make an application for amendment of the plaint to make an additional prayer, which was allowed. Such additional prayer was made regarding cancellation of the sale deed etc. which is by nature declaratory relief. Naturally, a question arose before the Court below whether the Court-fees initially paid by the plaintiff/appellant is sufficient or further Court-fees will be paid. Ultimately the dispute poised down to a finding and the aforesaid order was passed by enhancing the Court-fees on the basis of the market value of the property. Being aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with such order, the plaintiff/appellant preferred this appeal.

4. Both the contesting senior Counsel being Mr. H.R. Misra appearing for the plaintiff/appellant and Mr. Shashi Nandan appearing for the defendant/respondents, brought into notice of this Court certain facts and circumstances as well as the laws applicable herein.

5. Mr. Misra, contended before this Court that under Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of U.P. has power to assess the valuation of the property but if the dispute is of such nature which does not fall within the fore corners of Section 7 (iv-A) of the Act, the only applicable section herein is Article 17 of the Act, hence the decision in respect of fixing the Court-fees by the Court below is wrongful. Therefore, let us quote Section 7 (iv-A) of the Act being the State amendment of U.P., hereunder :

"(iv-A). For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decree.—In suits 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 a 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 of 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 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."

6. In support of his submission, Mr. Misra cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1992 All 254, Smt. Shefali Roy v. Hero Jaswant Dass and others, in which three Judges Bench judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 87, State of U.P. v. Ramkrishan Burman (deceased) and o