SHAILENDRA BHARDWAJ & OTHERS versus CHANDRA PAL & ANOTHER

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 21-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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(iv-
A) 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

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