IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving the declaration of a gift deed as null and void, Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act mandates the payment of ad-valorem court fees based on the market value of the property.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

The Proceedings:

Appeal under section 6-A of the Courts Fees Act, 1870

1. Heard Shri P.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned counsel for the sole-respondent.

2. The instant appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1870') at the instance of plaintiff of Original Suit No. 576 of 2021 (Kaniz Fatima v. Imran Khan) questions correctness and legality of the order dated 13.12.2023 whereby the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gorakhpur has decided the issue No. 2 holding that though the suit has been correctly valued, the plaintiff has not deposited ad-valorem Court fees on market value of the property and, therefore, she has been called upon to deposit the ad-valorem Court fees.

Submissions of the appellant:

3. Challenging the order impugned, Shri Ganguli submits that the defendant-respondent is son of the plaintiff-appellant and he committed a fraud in the manner that under the garb of getting executed a power of attorney from the appellant, he got executed and registered a gift deed dated 07.04.2021 and the appellant, having come to know about the fraud, instituted the suit in question claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed be declared as null, void, forged and fabricated having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and consequential information in this regard be sent to the Sub-Registrar's office.

4. Argument is that such a relief claimed falls under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act of 1870, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, inasmuch as, the appellant had not claimed any consequential relief and, therefore, fixed amount of Court fees deposited by her was sufficient. He further submits that the court below has wrongly invoked Section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870 which applies only for cancellation of an instrument, which is not the situation here. Shri Ganguli has further urged that the defendant has no right to raise any objection in the matter of Court fees and, in this regard, reliance has been placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ratnavaramaraja v. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299.

Submissions of the respondent:

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the plaintiff has claimed relief for adjudging the instrument of gift as null and void, the Court fees would be payable as per Section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870 and residuary Article 17(iii) of Schedule II would not apply. He, therefore, supports the order impugned.

Analysis of rival contentions:

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the trial court has passed the order impugned after taking into consideration the following Authorities:

(i) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & others, (2010) 12 SCC 12

(ii) Shailendra Bharadwaj & others v. Chandra Pal & another, (2013) 1 SCC 579

(iii) Agra Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David and others, AIR 2020 SC 1372

7. Although the judgment of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra) is not applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh as the said case had arisen out of State of Punjab, where different Rules of Court fees exist, the Supreme Court in the case of Shailendra Bharadwaj & others (supra), has extensively dealt with the provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 in a case where instrument is sought to be adjudged as null and void and has clearly held that in such situation, Section 7(iv-A) would be applicable. The judgment of Shailendra Bharadwaj & others (supra) has further been relied in Agra Diocesan Trust Association (supra).

8. Now dealing with the argument of Shri Ganguli that residuary Article 17(iii) would apply, it is first necessary to refer the said Article which reads as under:

“17(iii) To obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed in any suit, not otherwise provided for by this Act.”

9. At the same time, Section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870 needs reproduct