Anwarul Haq and Others Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Mau and Others

civil - payment of court fees - section 7 (iv-a)/ article17 of schedule 2 of court fees act - suit filed by plaintiff alleging that he is owner of suit property - impugned sale deed is a fake document - court fees paid by him according to article 17 of schedule 2 - lower court rejected the plaint holding that court fee should be paid under section 7 (iv-a) - held, there is no abuse of power on part of lower court. - - 2 as well as the order dated 9.7.97 by the respondent no......of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the court fees paid in respect of the reliefs claimed in the suit is sufficient.3. it appears that the plaintiff/petitioner filed suit in the lower court alleging that he is owner of the suit property and the impugned sale deed is a fake document and it has no effect upon his rights. he paid court fee of rs. 290 according to article 17 of schedule 2. the trial court rejected the plaint holding that the court fee should be paid under section 7 (iv-a). the matter was taken to lower appellate court where too it met the same fate. -4. i have heard mr. m. a. siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. he has raised the following submissions :firstly, he submitted that the plaintiff/petitioner has claimed only declaration and nothing more or less. he further submitted that the view of lower courts is wrong. he has invited my attention to smt. shefali roy v. herojaswant dass and others, 1992 (14) awc 1000. there is no doubt regarding the proposition that the court fee is to be paid upon the averments of the plaint and the relief claimed. i have gone through the averments and in substance the case is covered under section 7 (iv-a) which is quoted with advantage.'(iva). for cancellation or adjudging void instruments and decree. -- in suits for or involving cancellation of of 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. in substance the suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and there is allegation in the plaint that it has been obtained by fraud, etc. as he has not signed on it. i find no jurisdictional error or abuse of power on the part of lower courts or any miscarriage of justice. thus, there is no force in the writ petition, therefore, it is dismissed at the admission stage.