AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION versus ANIL DAVID AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 19-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 943
943
AGRA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION
v.
ANIL DAVID AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1722 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH
AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870: s.7(iv-A) – Suits filed
by plaintiff- appellant for cancellation of sale deed – Contested by
defendants on the ground that although the relief for cancellation
of the sale deed in question was sought, but the appellant had
improperly valued the suit and paid insufficient court fee – Trial
court recorded the findings against the appellant and held that that
the suits were undervalued and court fee paid by the plaintiff was
insufficient – Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition contending that
the appellant was not party to the sale deed and, therefore, trial
court committed an error in deciding the issues against him and in
directing him to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the
land and that as the land in dispute was agricultural land, the
appellant was obliged to pay the court fee on the revenue payable
as fixed by the State Government in view of s.7(iv-A) of the Act –
High Court by impugned order accepted the respondent’s
contentions that the circle rate fixed by the collector to charge stamp
duty took into account the actual market value of the property
situated in the area – It further held that fixation of circle rate by
the collector is the proper mode for fixation or determination of the
market value unless an aggrieved person challenges that the circle
rate fixed by the collector is not the correct market value of the
property – On appeal, held: There was no compulsion for the plaintiff
at the stage of filing the suit, to prove or establish the claim that the
suit lands were revenue paying and the details of such revenue paid
– Once it is conceded that the value of the land [per explanation to
s.7 (iv-A)] is to be determined according to either sub clauses (v),
(va) or (vb), this meant that the concept of “market value” - a wider
concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or
other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or
(vb) of s.7 (iv-A) – This aspect was lost sight of by High Court, in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
the facts of this case – The reasoning and conclusions of the High
Court, are therefore, not sustainable – Consequently, the question
of what is the market value, based on the revenue payable, would
be an issue to be tried in the suit.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is undisputed that the point in issue was with
respect to valuation for purposes of court fee; equally, it is not in
issue that since the plaintiff (i.e. petitioner) sought, in addition to
a declaration, in both the suits, decrees of cancellation, the crucial
point was what the correct value for purposes of court fee was.
Now, market value has been specifically defined, in the context
of a litigation like the present one. According to Section 7 (iv-A),
in case the plaintiff (or his predecessor-in-title) was not a party to
the decree or instrument, the value was to be according to one-
fifth of the value of the subject matter, “and such value shall be
deemed to be” under Section 7 (iv-A), “if the whole decree or
instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value
of the property in respect of which the decree is passed or the
instrument executed”. Importantly, the explanation to Section 7
(iv-A) created a deeming fiction as to what constitutes the “value
of the property” by saying that “in the case of immovable property
shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with
the sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be.” [Para
15][959-D-G]
2. The plaintiff/petitioners’ contention was and continues
to be that the value determinable is in terms of clause (v) of
Section 7, by reason of Section 7 (iv-A). Section 7 (v) (i) contains
two clauses- (a) and (b): both are in respect of revenue paying
lands. The petitioner valued its suits on the basis of revenue
which according to it, was payable. While so stating, the value
(for purposes of court fee) was determined to be Rs.3000/- in
each of the suits. There was no compulsion for the plaintiff to, at
the stage of filing the suit, prove or establish the claim that the
suit lands were revenue paying and the details of such revenue
paid. Once it is conceded that the value of the land [per
explanation to Section 7 (iv-A)] is to be determined

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.