DEVI PRASHAD AND ANOTHER Vs. SUDHA RANI
LAWS(UTN)-2013-12-75
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 05,2013

Devi Prashad And Another Appellant
VERSUS
SUDHA RANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Rishikesh, Dehradun in O.S. No. 36 of 2012, Devi Prasad and another vs. Sudha Rani, whereby the application of defendant to pay ad valorem court fee of Rs. 38,95,000/- in regard to relief (A), rest of the part of order in regard to correction of valuation is not being challenged since learned trial court has held the court fee payable in regard to relief (C) as sufficient.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the learned Civil Judge has committed a manifest error of law in not considering the fact, since the plaintiffs/appellants were not a party to the sale deed. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the Section 7 (IV-A)(2) of the Court Fees Act for facility quoted below: (IV-A) 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 value: (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 party 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 purpose of this sub-section, shall be the market value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub-sections (V), (V-A) or (V-B), as the case may be.
(3.) In view of the provision of Clause-IV(A)(2), the fee would be pay by the plaintiff of one-fifth of the market value.;


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