close
close

Association-anemone

Bite-sized brilliance in every update

    • Court Fees Act 1870 | Ad Valorem court fees payable in suit for declaration of gift deed as null and void: Allahabad HC
    asane

    Court Fees Act 1870 | Ad Valorem court fees payable in suit for declaration of gift deed as null and void: Allahabad HC

    Online Niel Posted on

    The Allahabad High Court ruled that in a suit filed seeking relief for declaring a deed of donation to be void, void, falsified and fabricated ad valorem Court fees will be paid according to the provisions Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) and not as per Article 17 (iii) of schedule II of the Act of 1870 residual.

    For context, residual Article 17 (iii) of Annex II applies to cases where a declaratory decree is sought without claiming any consequent relief. The provision explicitly states that it would apply to such processes “not otherwise provided for by this law”.

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

    On the other hand, Section 7(iv-A) of the 1870 Act applies to suits for or involving the annulment or judgment/declaration of nullity of a decree for money or an instrument securing money or other property of such value.

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

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

    In this sense, the Court also referred to the decision of the High Court from 2005 in Ram Krishna Dhandhania and Anr. vs Civil Judge (Sr. Division) And Ors.in which it was held that the defendant has the right to raise all objections to the assessment and deficiency of court fees.

    In essence, the Court was hearing a First Call submitted by Kaniz Fatima under Section 6-A of the 1870 Actcontesting an order of Civil Judge (Higher Division) Gorakhpur, forcing them to pay ad valorem court fees (depending on the market value of the property) in the process filed by her for the declaration of invalidity of a deed of donation, which his song executed by fraud.

    Before the HC, counsel for the appellant (Advocate Pranam K. Ganguli) submitted that she had sought an exemption which would fall under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the 1870 Act as applicable in the State of Uttar. Pradesh. Since she did not seek any relief accordingly, it was submitted that the fixed amount of court fees deposited by her was sufficient.

    It was further contended that the lower court had wrongly pleaded Section 7(iv-A) of the 1870 Actwhich applies only to the cancellation of an instrument, which is not the case here.

    Finally, it was argued that the defendant has no right to object to the court fees.

    On the other hand, counsel for the defendant (Lawyer Sheikh Moazzam Inam) contended that since the plaintiff-plaintiff sought relief to declare the instrument of gift void and void, court fees would be payable under section 7(iv-A) of the Act of 1870 and section 17(iii ) of late. Annex II would not apply in this case.

    Hearing both sides, the Court rejected both of the appellant’s contentions, dismissing the first appeal and upholding the order Civil Judge (Higher Division), Gorakhpur.

    Apparitions

    Appellant’s attorney: Pranab Kumar Ganguly

    Defendant’s lawyer: Sheikh Moazzam Inam

    Case Title – Kaniz Fatima vs Imran Khan

    Case Citation:

    Click here to read/download the order

    Online Niel
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like