Analyzing Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, Court Fees Act, 1870: Declaratory Decrees and Consequential Relief

Analyzing Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, Court Fees Act, 1870: Declaratory Decrees and Consequential Relief in Indian Law

Introduction

The Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter "the Act") is a seminal piece of legislation in India governing the levy of fees on plaints, written statements, appeals, and other documents filed in courts. Among its various provisions, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II has been a subject of extensive judicial interpretation. This provision prescribes a fixed court fee for suits seeking a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for and the suit is not otherwise provided for by the Act. The seemingly straightforward language of this article belies the complexities that arise in its application, particularly in distinguishing a "pure" declaratory suit from one that implicitly or explicitly seeks consequential relief, or one that falls under other specific provisions of the Act or state amendments thereto. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Article 17(iii), drawing upon key judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions to elucidate its scope, limitations, and interplay with other relevant legal principles in India.

Background and Context of Article 17(iii)

Court fees are levied primarily to meet the expenses incurred by the State in the administration of civil justice.[1] The quantum of court fee payable often depends on the nature of the suit and the relief claimed. Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act deals with plaints or memoranda of appeal in certain types of suits for which a fixed fee is prescribed. Specifically, Article 17(iii) states that a fixed fee (e.g., Rupees Thirty, subject to regional variations or amendments) is payable on a:

"Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits; ... (iii) to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed in any suit, not otherwise provided for by this Act..."[2]

The critical elements for the application of this provision are thus:

  1. The suit must be for obtaining a declaratory decree.
  2. No consequential relief should be prayed for, either expressly or by necessary implication.
  3. The suit must not be otherwise provided for by any other provision of the Court Fees Act, 1870, or applicable state amendments.
The interpretation of these elements has been pivotal in determining the correct court fee payable in a multitude of cases.

Analysis of Key Legal Points

Nature of Declaratory Decrees without Consequential Relief

A declaratory decree is a judicial pronouncement that declares the rights of the parties without ordering anything to be done. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, empowers courts to grant such decrees. The proviso to Section 34 states that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. This proviso often intertwines with the interpretation of "consequential relief" under the Court Fees Act.

The Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad And Others[3] clarified that if a suit, though couched as a declaratory one, effectively seeks a consequential relief, ad valorem court fee is payable. In that case, a suit by sons to declare a mortgage decree against their father as not binding on their interests in the Joint Hindu Family property was held to involve consequential relief, as the declaration would nullify the decree's effect on their share. The Court observed that the plaintiffs were "clearly asking for the setting aside of the decree."[3] This principle underscores that the substance of the plaint, rather than its mere form, determines whether consequential relief is involved.

The "Not Otherwise Provided For" Clause

Article 17(iii) is a residuary provision. It applies only if no other specific provision in the Act caters to the valuation of the suit or the computation of court fees for the relief claimed. As articulated by the Allahabad High Court in Kailash Chand v. Vth A.C.J, Meerut And Others[2] and reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shailendra Bhardwaj And Others v. Chandra Pal And Another,[4] "Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed."

This means that if a suit, even for a declaration, falls under a more specific provision, such as those in Section 7 of the Act, then Article 17(iii) will not apply.

Interplay with Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (and State Amendments)

Section 7 of the Act provides for the computation of fees payable in certain types of suits. Notably:

  • Section 7(iv)(c): This applies to suits "to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." In such cases, the court fee is computed ad valorem according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal, subject to rules regarding minimum valuation.
  • State Amendments, e.g., Section 7(iv-A) (U.P. Amendment): Several states have amended the Court Fees Act. The U.P. Amendment Act (Act 19 of 1938) introduced Section 7(iv-A), which specifically covers suits "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."[5]

The Supreme Court in Shailendra Bhardwaj[4] and later in J. Vasanthi v. N. Ramani Kanthammal[5] extensively analyzed the U.P. amendment. It was held that if a suit seeks a declaration that an instrument (like a sale deed or will) is void, and such a suit falls within the ambit of Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment, then ad valorem court fee is payable on the value of the subject matter, and Article 17(iii) would not apply. The Court clarified that Section 7(iv-A) is a specific provision, and where it applies, the residuary nature of Article 17(iii) excludes its operation.[4][5]

As stated in J. Vasanthi, "On a comparison between the Court Fees Act and the U.P Amendment Act, it is clear that Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P Amendment Act covers 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."[5] This has been consistently followed by the Allahabad High Court in cases like Paras Nath And Others v. Addl. Dist. Judge A. Nagar And Others.[6]

Distinction between Suits for Declaration Simpliciter and Suits Involving Cancellation/Setting Aside Instruments

A crucial distinction, particularly relevant for states without amendments like U.P.'s Section 7(iv-A), was drawn by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh And Others.[7] The Court held:

"Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him... If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee... under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. But if B, a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act."[7]

This principle was reaffirmed in J. Vasanthi.[5] Thus, for a non-executant in possession, a suit for a mere declaration that an instrument is void may attract a fixed fee under Article 17(iii), provided no consequential relief is sought and no other specific provision applies. However, if the plaintiff is an executant of the document, they must sue for cancellation and pay ad valorem court fees. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harinarayan v. Gulabchandra[8] and SMT. MAMTA HATHIYA PATIDAR v. BHUPENDRA[9], referencing a Full Bench decision, also reiterated that if a plaintiff, not a party to an instrument, alleges it to be void and seeks a declaration simpliciter, fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) is payable.

Discussion of Reference Materials

The judicial interpretation of Article 17(iii) has evolved through numerous pronouncements.

In Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh And Others (2010),[7] the Supreme Court clarified the court fee payable when a non-executant challenges an instrument. If the non-executant is in possession and seeks only a declaration that the instrument is void, a fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) (or its state equivalent, Rs. 19.50 in Punjab for the relevant entry) is sufficient. This case is pivotal for understanding the scope of Article 17(iii) in suits challenging instruments by third parties.

Shailendra Bhardwaj And Others v. Chandra Pal And Another (2012)[4] and J. Vasanthi v. N. Ramani Kanthammal (2017)[5] are landmark judgments dealing with the U.P. State Amendment to the Court Fees Act. They firmly establish that where Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act applies (i.e., in suits for or involving cancellation or adjudging an instrument void), Article 17(iii) is excluded, and ad valorem court fee is payable. These cases underscore the importance of state-specific amendments in determining the applicability of Article 17(iii). The Allahabad High Court in Kailash Chand v. Vth A.C.J, Meerut And Others (1998),[2] Ajay Tiwari v. Hirday Ram Tiwari & Ors. (2006),[10] and Paras Nath And Others v. Addl. Dist. Judge A. Nagar And Others (2019)[6] consistently applied this interpretation regarding the U.P. amendment.

The principle that pleadings must be examined in their entirety to determine the true nature of the relief and the applicable court fee was emphasized in Shiv Shanker Mukherjee v. Sandeep Jain (Allahabad High Court, 2016).[11] The court cannot superadd consequential relief if only a declaratory relief is prayed for, nor can it ignore a substantive relief by reading it as merely declaratory.

The case of Neelavathi And Others v. N. Natarajan And Others (1979)[12], while dealing with Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act concerning partition suits, provides an analogous principle. It distinguished between plaintiffs in joint possession (liable for fixed court fee) and those excluded from possession (liable for ad valorem court fee). This highlights how the plaintiff's averments regarding their status (e.g., possession) can determine whether a fixed or ad valorem fee is applicable, a consideration relevant to the "no consequential relief" aspect of Article 17(iii).

Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad And Others (1973)[3] is critical for its pronouncement that a declaratory suit aimed at nullifying a decree binding on the plaintiff inherently involves consequential relief (setting aside the decree), thus attracting ad valorem court fees and ousting Article 17(iii). This was followed in Sitaram And Others v. Maharaja Govindsinghjoo Deo And Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1974)[13], which noted that the decision in *Baldeo Singh v. Gopal Singh* (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 221, where Article 17(iii) was held applicable in a similar context) must be held as not good law after *Shamsher Singh*. However, *Sitaram* also clarified that a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, CPC, for declaration simpliciter could attract fixed court fee under Article 17(iii).

In Suresh And Ors. v. Chand And Ors. (Allahabad High Court, 2007),[14] where an amendment sought cancellation of a sale deed, the court held that Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amended Act would apply, requiring ad valorem court fee, rather than Article 17(iii). Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Singh v. Smt. Meera Rathore Sitanshu & 6 Others (Allahabad High Court, 2015),[15] a suit assailing a sale deed was considered in light of these provisions.

Conclusion

Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870, provides for a fixed court fee in suits for a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed and the suit is not otherwise provided for by the Act. Its application, however, is nuanced and heavily dependent on judicial interpretation and state-specific amendments. The primary considerations are:

  • The Substance of the Relief: Courts look beyond the prayer's language to its actual import. If a declaration effectively grants further relief, it is treated as a suit with consequential relief (Shamsher Singh).
  • Executant v. Non-Executant: A non-executant in possession seeking to declare an instrument void may fall under Article 17(iii), while an executant must seek cancellation and pay ad valorem fees (Suhrid Singh).
  • Residuary Nature: Article 17(iii) applies only if no other specific provision, including state amendments like Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, covers the suit (Shailendra Bhardwaj, J. Vasanthi).
  • Pleadings are Key: The averments in the plaint are crucial for determining the appropriate court fee (Shiv Shanker Mukherjee).

The law surrounding Article 17(iii) requires careful consideration of the specific facts of each case, the precise nature of the relief claimed, the plaintiff's relationship to any instrument sought to be impugned, their possession status, and the applicable statutory framework, including any state amendments. Legal practitioners must meticulously draft plaints to accurately reflect the relief sought to ensure correct valuation and payment of court fees, thereby avoiding preliminary objections and potential dismissal of suits.

References