Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant challenges the legality of order dated 2.9.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad in Original Suit No. 256 of 2008, Smt. Salima Begam Vs. Smt. Saeeda Begam and others, whereby issue no. 4 regarding valuation of the suit and payment of court fee, has been decided against the appellant and she has been directed to pay court fee according to section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. It appears that the plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that she is the sole owner in possession of the house detailed at the foot of the plaint through oral gift of Mohd. Shareef and further the sale deed dated 20.10.2008 executed by defendant no. 5 in favour of defendant no. 6 and 7 is null and void. She further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the said house. The plaintiff has valued suit property at Rs. 7,50,000/- for relief (A) and (B) respectively and Rs. 6,00,000/- i.e. sale consideration of the sale deed for relief (B) and has paid court fee accordingly. The defendants inter alia alleged that the plaintiff has not paid sufficient court fee as she is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the relief for declaration adjudging the sale deed null and void. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that plaintiff has correctly paid the court fee as per the provisions of Art. 17(iii) of the Court Fees Act and has placed reliance on the case of Suhrid Singh Vs. Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC-112. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order has contended that although the plaintiff has not claimed relief for cancellation of the sale deed and has simply sought declaration for its being null and void, she cannot escape liability for paying ad valorem court fee because relief sought did amount to cancellation of the sale deed. We have carefully considered rival contentions of the parties. The case of Suhrid Singh (supra) has been distinguished by the Apex Court in its latest judgment rendered in Shailendra Bhardwaj and others Vs. Chandra Pal and another (2013) 1 SCC 579 . We have carefully considered rival contentions of the parties. The case of Suhrid Singh (supra) has been distinguished by the Apex Court in its latest judgment rendered in Shailendra Bhardwaj and others Vs. Chandra Pal and another (2013) 1 SCC 579 . The Apex Court has taken notice of the U.P. Amendment in section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act and has observed that the amended article is applicable in the cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without consequential reliefs and there is no other provision under the Court Fees Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. It was further observed that since section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, specifically provides for payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable an instrument securing property having money value, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act shall not be applicable. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that U.P. Amendment Act (Act 19 of 1938) is applicable in the present case despite the fact that no consequential relief has been claimed with regard to cancellation of the impugned sale deed and consequently in terms of section 7(iv-A), court fee have to be computed according to value of the subject matter and the trial court has not erred in deciding issue no. 4 against the plaintiff appellant. Hence, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit ad valorem court fee as directed by the trial court within one month from today, failing which consequences of section 6-A(2) of the Court Fees Act, would follow. No order as to cost. _____________