TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit by a non-executant, seeking a declaration that sale deeds are void or not binding and also seeking consequential relief of joint possession and injunction, attracts ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration as a cancellation suit, or is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870.
Analysis: A distinction was drawn between a suit by the executant of a deed, who must sue for cancellation, and a suit by a non-executant, who may seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, void, illegal, or not binding. Where the non-executant is in possession and seeks only a declaration, the suit falls under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule. Where the non-executant seeks declaration together with consequential relief such as possession, court fee is governed by Section 7(iv)(c), read with the proviso and Section 7(v), and valuation must be according to the relief claimed and not the sale consideration in the deeds.
Conclusion: The suit was not one for cancellation of the sale deeds; it was a declaratory suit by a non-executant with consequential relief, and court fee was payable under Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, not on the sale consideration.
TaxTMI 
