# SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ & OTHERS v. CHANDRA PAL & ANOTHER - **Citation:** [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1125 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2012-11-21 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2012 - **Bench:** K.5. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shailendra-bhardwaj-others-v-chandra-pal-another-27936 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote COURT FEES ACT, 1870: A B s.7(iv-A) and Articles 17(iii) as amended by U.P. Act, 19 c of 1938 - Suit for declaration of a will and a sale deed as null and void and for cancellation thereof - Court fee payable - Held: The suit having been filed after death of testator, suit property covered by the will has to be valued - Since s. 7(ivA) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that D payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply - Consequently, in terms of s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed according to the value of the subject matter and E tn"al court as well as High Court have correctly held so. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of a will and a sale as null and void and to cancel the same. The suit property was valued at Rs. 30,00,0001- but the fixed court F fee of Rs. 2001- was paid under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court held that the plaintiff should have paid the court fee as per s.17(iv-A) of the U. P. Amendment Act. The High Court upheld the said order. G In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether a suit filed seeking a declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting 1125 H 1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A their cancellation, will fall u/s. 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938) or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under C the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. But if such relief is covered by any other provisions of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable. The suit, in the instant case, was filed after the death of the testator and, therefore, the suit property D covered by the will has also to be valued. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.30 Lakhs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, he paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. He had not noticed the fact that the said Article E stood amended by the State, by adding the words "not otherwise provided by this Act". Since s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree F for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply. The U.P. Amendment Act, therefore, is applicable, despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed. Consequently, in terms of s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed G according to the value of the subject matter and the trial court as well as the High Court have correctly held so. [Para 10-11] [1133-B-D-E-G; 1134-C-E] Suh rid Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others (2010) 12 H SCC 12 - held inapplicable SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1127 Case Law Reference: A (2010) 12 sec 12 held inapplicable Para 5 ## Text [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1125 SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ & OTHERS v. CHANDRA PAL & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2012) NOVEMBER 21, 2012 [K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] COURT FEES ACT, 1870: A B s.7(iv-A) and Articles 17(iii) as amended by U.P. Act, 19 c of 1938 - Suit for declaration of a will and a sale deed as null and void and for cancellation thereof - Court fee payable - Held: The suit having been filed after death of testator, suit property covered by the will has to be valued - Since s. 7(ivA) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that D payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply - Consequently, in terms of s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed according to the value of the subject matter and E tn"al court as well as High Court have correctly held so. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of a will and a sale as null and void and to cancel the same. The suit property was valued at Rs. 30,00,0001- but the fixed court F fee of Rs. 2001- was paid under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court held that the plaintiff should have paid the court fee as per s.17(iv-A) of the U. P. Amendment Act. The High Court upheld the said order. G In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether a suit filed seeking a declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting 1125 H 1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A their cancellation, will fall u/s. 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act (Act XIX of 1938) or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under C the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. But if such relief is covered by any other provisions of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable. The suit, in the instant case, was filed after the death of the testator and, therefore, the suit property D covered by the will has also to be valued. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.30 Lakhs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, he paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. He had not noticed the fact that the said Article E stood amended by the State, by adding the words "not otherwise provided by this Act". Since s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act specifically provides that payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree F for money or an instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would not apply. The U.P. Amendment Act, therefore, is applicable, despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed. Consequently, in terms of s. 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the court fees have to be computed G according to the value of the subject matter and the trial court as well as the High Court have correctly held so. [Para 10-11] [1133-B-D-E-G; 1134-C-E] Suh rid Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others (2010) 12 H SCC 12 - held inapplicable SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1127 Case Law Reference: A (2010) 12 sec 12 held inapplicable Para 5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2012. B From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FA No. 242 of 2011. Viresh Kumar Yadav, Md. Farman for the Appellant. M.R. Shamshad, Shashank Singh, Gaurav Agarwal for the C Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. 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 D 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 E 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: F "(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. G (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 H A 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. 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. 8 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 C 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 K1,1mar Yadav, learned counsel appearing o 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 E 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 sec 12) and contended that the Court fee need be paid only on the plaint averments. F 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 G Section ?(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 H to the value of the subject matter and an ad valorem court fee SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1129 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] has to be paid. Learned counsel also submitted that the A 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 8 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 C Act. An operative chart of the Court Fees Act and the U.P. Amendment Act is given below: Court Fees Act "7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits: The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: (iv) In Suits - For declaratory decree and consequent reliefAs per UP Amendment Act (19 of 1938) "7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits for money: The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: For declaratory decree with consequential relief - (iv) in Suits- (a) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief other than relief D E F G H A B c D E F G H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. ......... (a) .... . ......... (b) ..... . For a declaratory decree and consequential relief (c) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. specified in subsection (iv-A) is prayed; For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees - (iv-A) in suit 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 party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to belt the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ v. CHANDRA PAL 1131 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] "Schedule II Article 17 Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits: (iii) To obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. property in respect of which the decree was passed or 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 mar1