AMRENDRA SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-112
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 24,2013

AMRENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 104 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is directed against the order dated 23.06.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 103 of 2010, whereby said court has decided issue no. 5 relating to valuation of court fee of the suit, and held that the court fee paid by the plaintiff (present appellant) is insufficient and he was directed to amend the plaint and pay the court fee in accordance with the law. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that he had filed the suit for declaration of cancellation of sale deed dated 09.11.2010, as he was not party of said deed, as such the plaintiff had rightly paid court fee of Rs. 200/ - on the declaratory decree sought by him. However, Section 7(iv -A) of Court Fees Act, 1870 reads as under: - For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees - 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 a party to the decree or instrument, according to one -fifth of the value of the subject -matter, and such value shall be deemed to be. 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 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: -........................
(3.) FROM the above provision it is clear that for cancellation of an instrument in which the plaintiff or his predecessor is in title was not the party, the plaintiff is required to pay court fee on the one -fifth of the market value of the subject matter (in the present case immovable property). Admittedly, the plaintiff has not paid court fee in accordance to provision of Section 7(iv -A) of The Court Fees Act, 1870. The trial court has rightly held that the valuation and the court fee paid in the plaint is insufficient.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.