JUDGMENT

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The short question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a suit filed seeking a declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting their cancellation, will fall under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938) [for short ‘the U.P. Amendment Act’] or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation.

3. Civil Suit No. 230 of 2006 was filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Hathras, U.P. seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) Decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, declare null and void and invalid of the forged will dated 21.3.2003 and sale deed dated 12.1.2005 and cancel and its information sent to the office of Registrar Hathras.

(B) That the cost of the Suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(C) That any other cost which may deem fit by the Hon’ble Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of Justice.”

4. The suit property was valued and the cost of the property was fixed at Rs.30,00,000/- and the Court fee of Rs.200/- was paid under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fee Act. The question arose before the trial Court whether the plaintiff had properly valued the suit and the court fee paid. The trial Court took the view that the plaintiff should have paid the court fee as per Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. The matter was taken up before the High Court. The High Court concurred with the views taken by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 15.12.2011, against which this appeal has been preferred.

5. Shri Viresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the suit be valued and an ad valorem court fee be paid under Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had correctly valued the suit and proper court fee was paid in accordance with Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. Considerable reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others [(2010) 12 SCC 12] and contended that the Court fee need be paid only on the plaint averments.

6. Shri M. R. Shamshad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court has come to the correct conclusion that even though no consequential reliefs was prayed for, still as per the U.P. Amendment Act, plaintiff will have to pay the court fee under Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had valued the suit without noticing the fact that the State of U.P. had amended the Court Fee Act by Act XIX of 1938 and in terms of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fee has to be commuted according to the value of the subject matter and an ad valorem court fee has to be paid. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment of this Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and this Court had no occasion to consider the scope of the U.P. State amendment in that judgment.

7. We may, for proper appreciation of the various contentions raised by the parties, refer to the provisions of the Court Fees Act as well as Court Fees Act as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, which will give a correct picture of the changes made by the U.P. Amendment Act on the Court Fees Act. An operative chart of the Court Fees Act and the U.P. Amendment Act is given below:

Court Fees Act

As per UP Amendment Act (19 of 1938)

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain

“7. Computation of fees payable in certain

suits:

suits for money:

The amount of fee payable under this Act

The amount of fee payable under this Act

in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall

in the suits next hereinafter