Mohd. Ibrahim vs Smt. Sadika Begum and Others

Yatindra Singh and Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), JJ.—Mohd. Ibrahim (the appellant) filed suit No. 75 of 2004 for declaring sale-deed dated 5.2.2004 executed by Mohd Azmal in favour of Smt. Sadika Begum (respondent-1) as null and void. In this suit the Trial Court framed issue No. 6 relating to valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the Court fee paid in the suit.

The Trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2011 held that valuation of the suit has been properly given as Rs. 19,22,000/-. However, the Trial Court held that in substance, the suit had been filed for cancellation of the registered sale-deed as such the plaintiff was required to pay Court fee for the relief of cancellation of the sale-deed and the Court fees of Rs. 200/- paid on this relief is insufficient. Hence, the present appeal u/s 6-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

We have heard Sri Lalit Kumar, Counsel for the appellant, Sri P.K. Rai, Counsel for respondent-1 and Standing Counsel for the State.

The Counsel for the appellants submits that:

The suit has been filed for grant of declaratory decree;

The appellant is in possession of the property in dispute and no consequential relief has been prayed;

The appellant is required to give fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act.

In support of the contention, Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others,

Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of Court Fee Act applies to the suits when no consequential relief is prayed for and the suit is not otherwise provided for.

Section 7 (iv)-A of the Act is titled as ''For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees''. It does provide ad valorem Court fees in the suit for adjudging an instrument securing property as void as such the suit is covered by section 7(iv)-A of the Act. Since the suit for adjudging an instruments as void is covered u/s 7(iv)-A of the Court Fees Act. As such Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act is not applicable in this case. It has also been held in the following cases of this Court:

(i) Smt. Bibbi and Another Vs. Shugan Chand and Others,

(ii) Kailash Chand Vs. Vth A.C.J., Meerut and others, .

(iii) Ajay Tiwari v. Hirday Ram Tiwari, 2006 (65) ALR 70

(iv) Smt. Rajni Swami v. Smt. Shakuntala Sharma. 2009 (76) ALR 334

The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is related to the Court Fee Act as applicable in Punjab. We have not been shown that in Punjab provisions similar to section 7 (iv)-A of the Act as amended in U.P. is there. Accordingly, the aforesaid case law is not applicable. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.