Summary
The Supreme Court set aside orders fixing court-fee valuation of suits cancelling sale deeds by reference to stamp-duty circle rates. Under the applicable U.P. amendment, the statutory definition deemed immovable-property value to be computed by the specified methods, including revenue-based valuation where applicable. The plaintiff was not required to prove its revenue-paying-land claim at filing. Correct valuation on the pleaded basis remained an issue for trial.
Issues
- Whether stamp-duty circle rates could displace the statutory valuation method for cancellation suits.
- Whether the plaintiff had to prove the pleaded revenue basis of valuation when filing suit.
Provisions considered
- Section 7(iv-A) and Explanation, Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended in Uttar PradeshRequired a non-party’s cancellation suit to be valued on one-fifth of the statutorily determined subject-matter value, referring immovable-property valuation to the specified sub-sections. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- For these suits seeking cancellation as well as declarations, Section 7(iv-A) governed. Where the plaintiff or predecessor was not a party to the instrument, the applicable fraction was one-fifth; the explanation supplied the deemed basis of immovable-property value through sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B), as appropriate. (¶¶ 9, 13, 14, 15)
- The High Court lost sight of that statutory fiction in adopting the wider concept of market value reflected in circle rates. At the stage of filing, the plaintiff was not compelled to establish the pleaded revenue-paying character and revenue details by proof. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The correct market value based on revenue payable was to be tried in the suit. Setting aside the preliminary valuation orders did not finally establish the plaintiff’s asserted ₹3,000 valuation. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court and trial court valuation orders set aside. Correct revenue-based valuation left as an issue for trial. No order as to costs.