Court Fees Act 1870 | Ad Valorem Court Fees Is Payable In Suit Filed For Declaring A Gift Deed As Null & Void: Allahabad HC

For context, residuary Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II applies to cases where a declaratory decree is sought to be obtained without claiming any consequential relief. The provision explicitly states that it would apply to such suits “not otherwise provided for by this Act”.

In other words, the Court explained that if a suit is otherwise covered by any other provision in the Act 1870, the aforesaid residuary clause would not apply.

On the other hand, Section 7(iv-A) of the 1870 Act applies to suits for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring null and void decree for money or an instrument securing money or other property having such value.

A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra also observed that a defendant has a statutory right under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1870 (as applicable in UP) to raise objections on valuation and deficiency in court fees.

The Court clarified that Sections 6(3) and 6(4) of 1870 allow objections regarding court fee sufficiency to be raised by two categories of persons: officers under Section 24-A and persons other than officers under Section 24-A. Thus, a defendant would fall into the category described under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1870.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the High Court's 2005 ruling in Ram Krishna Dhandhania And Anr. vs Civil Judge (Sr. Division) And Ors., wherein it was held that the defendant has a right to raise all objections to the valuation and deficiency of the court fees.

The Court was essentially hearing a First Appeal filed by Kaniz Fatima under Section 6-A of the 1870 Act, challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gorakhpur, requiring her to pay ad-valorem court fees (based on the property's market value) in the suit filed by her for declaring a gift deed, which his song got executed by fraud, as null and void.

Before the HC, the counsel for the appellant (Advocate Pranam K. Ganguli) argued that she had claimed relief that would fall under the purview of Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act of 1870, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since she had not claimed any consequential relief, it was argued that the fixed amount of court fees she had deposited was sufficient.

It was further submitted that the court below has wrongly invoked Section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870, which applies only to the cancellation of an instrument, which is not the situation here.

Lastly, it was submitted that a defendant has no right to raise objections to Court fees.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent (Advocate Sheikh Moazzam Inam) argued that since the plaintiff-appellant had claimed relief for adjudging the instrument of gift as null and void, the Court fees would be payable as per Section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870 and residuary Article 17(iii) of Schedule II would not apply in this case.

Having heard both parties, the Court rejected both the appellant's contentions, dismissing the first appeal and upholding the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Pranab Kumar Ganguli

Counsel for Respondent: Sheikh Moazzam Inam

Case title – Kaniz Fatima vs Imran Khan

Case citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order