For suits involving cancellation of deeds, court fees should be calculated based on market value, not just on the consideration mentioned in those deeds.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 6-A of the COURT FEES ACT , 1870 has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Bulandshahr, in Original Suit No. 01 of 2015, Pramod Kumar (deceased) and others vs. Sheeshram and others, whereby the court fees for the relief of cancellation of sale deeds has been ordered to be paid ad-valorem on the market value of the disputed property.

2. The plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs in the original suit:-

"A. By decree of declaration granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 22.01.2014 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1, which was registered in Book No.1, Jild No.2554 at pages 143-212 at Sr. No.755 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Syana be declared null and void.

B. By decree of declaration granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 23.01.2014 executed by defendant no. 4 and 5 in favour of defendant no.1, which was registered in Book No.1, Jild No.2555 at pages 37-74 at Sr. No.794 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Syana be declared null and void.

C. By decree of declaration granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 18.10.2014 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no.2, which was registered in Book No.1, Jild No.2826 at pages 289-320 at Sr. No.10214 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Syana be declared null and void.

D. By decree of mandatory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs against defendant no.1 to 6, the defendants be directed to remove the illegal constructions from the ABCD property of the plaintiffs, after demolishing them and to restore the property in it's original condition.

E. The cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants first party.

F. Any other relief which the Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the plaintiffs against the defendants first party."

3. In the plaint, the plaintiffs valued the above reliefs as under:-

4. Relief 'A', 'B' and 'C' were valued according to the consideration mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.20 lacs, 11 lacs and 10 lacs, respectively. Relief 'D' was valued at Rs.1 lac on the basis of the market value of the disputed construction.

5. In this way, the plaintiff valued the whole suit at Rs.42 lacs and has paid for the reliefs A, B and C, court fees of Rs.200/- each in accordance with Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the COURT FEES ACT , 1870 and for the relief 'D' maximum court fees of Rs. 500/- was paid, as such, plaintiff paid a total court fees of Rs.1,100/-

6. The trial court concluded that for the above reliefs, the plaintiff has paid a court fees of Rs.1,100/-, which was inadequate because the plaintiff was seeking declaration that the above sale deeds were void and, as such, the plaintiff was bound to pay court fees in accordance with Section 7 (iv-A) of the COURT FEES ACT , 1870, as amended in U.P. The trial court also noted that if the plaintiff or his predecessors in title were not a party to the above sale deeds,then the suit is to be valued according to 1/5th of the value of the subject matter.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the impugned order of the trial court is erroneous because the trial court has not considered the fact that the plaintiff or his predecessors were not the parties to the alleged sale deeds, which are sought to be cancelled, as such, the trial court should have ordered that only 1/5th value of the subject matter is to be taken into consid