Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
This writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 without issuing notice to opposite party No. 3.
A suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 13.5.2010, which was in respect of agricultural land, was filed by opposite party No. 3 before IVth Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 36, Lucknow having Regular Suit No. 656 of 201, Vir Bahadur Singh v. Smt. Mamta Singh. The petitioners filed written statement in the suit assailing the pecuniary jurisdiction as well as computation of court fees for seeking relief by the plaintiff. The trial court vide its order dated 10.9.2012 decided both issues in favour of plaintiff, the opposite party No. 3 in this writ petition. Against the said order, petitioners preferred Civil Revision having No. 311 of 2012 in the court of District Judge, Lucknow which was subsequently transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Room No. 8, Lucknow. The petitioners could not succeed in the revision and the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by the IVth Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 36, Lucknow was affirmed.
It is not in dispute that property in question and the subject matter of sale-deed is agricultural land. The provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as applicable in the state of Uttar Pradesh provide the manner of payment of court fees under section 7 of the Act. For the purpose of cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees the provisions are contained in sub section (iv-A) of section 7 of the Act.
The provisions of sub section of (iv-A) of section 7 are reproduced here-in-below.
For cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decrees- (IV-A) In 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:
(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 beif 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 purposes 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”.
The explanation added to this sub section clearly provides that for the purpose of sub section the market value in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with sub sections (v), (v-A) and (v-B), as the case may be.
For ready reference sub sections (v), (v-A) and (v-B) of section 7 of the Act as applicable in the state of Uttar Pradesh are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“(v)- For possession of lands, houses and gardens-(v) In suits for the possession of land, buildings and gardens
-according to the value of the subject matter; and such value shall be deemed to be-
(I) Where the subject-matter is land, and -
(a) where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate, and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue and such revenue is permanently settled -
thirty times the revenue so payable:
(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid and such revenue is settled by not permanently-
ten times the revenue so payable:
(c) where the lands pays no such revenue, or has been partially; exempted form such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the three years immediately preceding date of presenting the plaint-
twenty times the annual average of such net profits, but when no such net profits have arisen therefrom the market value which shall be determined by multiplying by twenty the annual average net profits of similar land for three years immediately preceding the date of presenting the plaint;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and does not come under clause (a), (b) or (c) above-
the market value of the land which shall be determined by multiplying by fifteen the rental value of the land, including assumed rent on proprietary cultivation, if any;
(II) where the subject matter is a building or garden-according to the market-value of the building or garden, as the case may be.
Explanation- The word ‘estate’ as used in this subsection, means any land subject to the payment of revenue for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue.
For possession of superior proprietary and under-proprietary land-(v-A) In suits for possession-
(1) of superior proprietary rights where under-proprietary or sub proprietary rights exist in the land-according to the market-value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be determined by multiplying by fifteen the annual net profits of the superior proprietor;
(2) of under-proprietary or sub-proprietary land as such-
according to the value of subject-matter, and such value shall be determined by multiplying by ten the annual under-proprietary or sub-proprietary rent, as the case may be, recorded in Collector's register as payable for the land for the year next before the presentation of the plaint.
If no such rent is recorded in the Collector's register the value shall be determined in the manner laid down in clause (c) of sub-section (v) of this section save that the multiple will be ten.
Explanation- Land held by any permanent lessees shall be treated for the purposes of this sub-section, as under-proprietary or sub proprietary land.
(v-B) Possessory suits between tenants- In suits for possession of land between rival tenants and tenants against trespasser-
according to the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be determined if such land is the land of -
(a) a permanent tenure-holder or a fixed rate tenant-by multiplying by twenty the annual rent recorded in Collector's register as payable for the land for the year next before the presentation of the plaint;
(b) an ex-proprietary or occupancy tenant-by multiplying by two such rent in case of suits for possession of land between rival tenants, and by annual rent in suits by tenants against trespasser;
(c) any other tenant-by annual rent.
If no such rent is recorded in the Collector's register, the value shall be determined in the manner laid down in clause (c) of sub-section (v) of this section save that the multiple shall be that entered in clause (a), (b) and (c) of this sub-section according as the class of tenancy affected is governed by clause (a), (b) or (c) of this sub-section.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners after relying upon a judgment of Apex court submitted that the consideration passed under sale deed would be the value on which ad valorem Court fee has to be paid by the plaintiff for the relief sought in the suit and similarly pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall also be determined in accordance with amount of consideration disclosed in the sale-deed and contended that sale deed executed in this case discloses the consideration of more than Rs. 17,50,000/-. Therefore, for the purpose of payment of court fees the valuation of the suit as well as for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, the amount of consideration of sale-deed disclosed should be taken. If this amount is taken, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is also under valuation for the purpose of court fee.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2013 (11) RD 310 Supreme Court, Shailendra Bhardwaj v. Chandra Pal.
The controversy before the Apex Court in this matter was that what would be the mode of determination of court fees in the suit for declaration under Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the mode of computation of court fees for the suit for declaration wherein the plain relief for declaration was sought and other in which decree of declaration with consequential relief was sought. The Apex Court held that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief, the ad valorem court fee shall be payable. The Apex Court has not dealt with controversy, which is involved in the present case.
The controversy involved in the case in hand is; what would be the market value for the purpose of suit for cancellation in respect of agricultural land?
The court on the basis of provisions contained in sub section (v) of section 7 of the Act decided the suit for the purpose of determination of court fee, which will be on the basis of annual rent assessed by the Collector and not on the basis of actual consideration passed under the sale-deed.
Similarly, the suit for the purpose of valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was also determined in accordance with provisions of suit valuation on the basis of annual rent assessed by the Collector.
It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that value determined for the payment of court fee as well as for pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court would be the same. The trial court decided the issues in light of the provisions of sub section (v) section 7 of the Act for payment of court fees and in the light of the Suits Valuation Act for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. There appears no mistake or any violation of statutory provision while passing the impugned orders by the courts below..
Consequently, this petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.