Bare Acts Search Results BareAct > THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955
THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955 Complete Act
|THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955|
THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955
Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955
An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to court-fees and Valuation of Suits in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Whereas it is necessary and expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to Court-fees and suit Valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Be it enacted in the Seventh year of the Republic of India as follows.
1. Short title, extent and commencement "
(1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, appoint. (Brought into force on 19.5.1955.] Received the assent of the President on the 13th May 1955 and published in Fort St. George Gazettte, dated 16th May 1955, Part IVB. Extra " ordinary page 121.
Object of levying court fee was to secure revenue for the benefit of the State " Gavaranga Sanu v. Boto Krishna 19 MLJ 340 : 1 LR 32 Mad 305 : 4 IC 503 (FB)
The difference of court fee and tax is there is always an element of quid pro quo and the same is absent in tax. " Jagannath Ramanujadoss V. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 400 : 1954 SCR 1046
The same view approved by a larger bench in the Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department V.Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 724 : 1973 1 SCC 162 : 1974 1 SCJ 111 : 1973 1 SCWR 1 : 1972 Tax LR 581
Followed by Madras High Court in Sriramulu V. Registrar, High Court , 1974 1 MLJ 390 : 88 LW 181 (DB)
Court fees Act is a fiscal Act where an adjudication given by a Tribunal could fall within two provisions of the court fees Act, one of which was for the litigant and other more liberal, the court would apply that provision which was beneficial to the litigant " Diwan Brothers V. Central Bank of India and Others AIR 1976 SC 1503 : 1976 3 SCC 800.
When plaintiff dexterously couch pleadings with a view to defeat the provisions of the Court fees Act, it is incumbent on the court look into the allegations in the plaint and see what is the substantive relief asked for .- Shamsher Singh V. Rajinder Prasad and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2284 : 1974 1 SCJ 270 : 1973 SCD 844
2. Application of Act "
(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to "
(a) (Proceedings in the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras ( omitted ) by Act XLIII of 1979.
(b) documents presented or to be presented before an officer serving under the Central Government.
(2) Where any other law contains provisions relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such other law, the provisions of this Act relating to the levy of fee in respect of such proceedings shall apply subject to the said provisions of such other law.
3. Definitions "
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires "
(i) "Appeal" includes a cross-objection.
There is no definition of appeal in C.P.C. any application by a party to an appellate court, asking it to set aside or revise a decision of subordinate court is an appeal Nagendra Nath Dey and another V.Suresh Chandra Dey and others, AIR 1932 PC 165 : 68 MLJ 329 : 36 LW 7 : 59 IA 283 : 1932 MWN 817 : 1 LR 60 Cal 1
Judicial examination of the decision of the higher court of the decision of an inferior court is appeal Laxmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. AIR 1968 SC 488 : 1968 (2) SCJ 1 : 1968 1 SCR 505 : 1968 (1) SCWR 433 : 21 STC 154.
(ii) "Court" means any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction under any special or local law to decide questions affecting the rights of parties;
(iii) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act.
Inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965 [(iii-a) "transferred territory" means the Kanyakumari district and the Shencottah taluk of the Tirunelveli district .] and
(iv) expressions used and not defined in this Act or in the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1891), but defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the said Code.
Definition of fee : A fee is levied for services rendered and as such there is element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fees and the public authority which imposes it. Srinivasa General Traders V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1246 : 1984 (4) SCC 353
See also " Jaganatha Ramanujadoss v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 400 : 1954 SCR 1046
Secretary, Government of Madras, Home department v. Zenith Lamp and Lamp and Electrical Limited, AIR 1973 SC 724 : 1973 1 SCC 162 : 1974 1 SCJ 111 : 1973 1 SCWR 1 : 1972 Tax L.R. 581.
Sriramulu v. Registrar, High Court, Madras, 1975 1 MLJ 390 : 88 LW 181 (D.B.)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others v. Mohd. Yasim etc., AIR 1983 SC 617 : 1983 2 SCJ 66 : 1983 3 SCC 229 : 1983 2 SCR 999
Dhenkanal Municipal Council and another v. A.Raja Rao and others JT 1993 (2) SC 393
Liability to pay Fee
4. Levy of fee in Courts and Public Offices "
No document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall "
(i) be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished by, any court including the High Court, or
(ii) be filed, exhibited or recorded in any public office, or be acted on or furnished by any public officer.
Unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act.
Provided that, whenever the filing or exhibition in a Criminal Court of a document in respect of which the proper fee has not been paid is in the opinion of the court necessary to prevent a failure of justice, nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to prohibit such filing or exhibition.
Section 4 contemplates payment of Court Fee at the time of filing the suit, whereas in suits for accounts (Sec. 35) and dissolution of partnership (See. 36) Court fee is payable only after the ascertainment of the correct amount " Mathew and others v. Special Deputy Collector, 1978 (2) MLJ 391 : 91 L.W. 290.
Time fixed by the court for the correction of the Valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended. However the party can seek extension of time under Sec.149 of the CPC - Mohammed Mahibulla and others v. Seth Chamen Lal (dead) by L.R. s and others (JT 1991 (4) SC 1 )
If deficit court fee is not paid he cannot be compelled to pay and distraint proceedings cannot be taken against him. " T.E.K. Mohammed Amiruddin v. T.E. Mohammed Ibrahim and others, AIR 1957 Mad 667 : 70 L.W. 886.
Technical defects do not stand in the way of rendering justice in criminal matters " Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. Notional Building Material Supply AIR 1969 SC 1267 : (1969) 1 Sec. 869.
5. Fees on documents inadvertently received "
When a document on which the whole or any part of the fee prescribed by this Act has not been paid is produced or has, through mistake or inadvertence, been received in any court or public office, the court or the head of the office may, in its or his discretion at any time, allow the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the fee or part therof, as the case maybe, within such time as may be fixed; and upon such payment, the document shall have the same force and effect as if the full fee had been paid in the first instance
Document does not include promissory note. Under stamped promissory note is inadmissible and the defect cannot be cured " 1977 TLNJ 116.
6. Multifarious suits "
(1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs.
Provided that, if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief.
(2) where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees liable on the reliefs.
Definition of cause of action " In re Lakshminarayana Chettiar and another, AIR 1954 Mad 594 : 1954 1 MLJ 403 : 67 LW 123 : ILR 1954 MAD 389
Ancillary and alternative reliefs and payment of court fees is discussed in " Panchapandava Malai Masjid v. State of Madras, 1974 11 MLJ 163 (DB) : 88 LW SN 2
Alternative reliefs based on the same cause of action court fee is payable on the relief which carries the highest fee leviable " In re Patru Venugopalaya, AIR 1932 Mad 158 : 62 MLJ 150 :34 LW 837 : 1932 MWN 14 : ILR 55 Mad 336 : 135 IC 747
Cause of action are distinct and different as also the reliefs " Court fee is payable on each relief as if it were an independent suit .-
Secretary of State v. Ayyasami Chettiar, AIR 1933 Mad 178 : 65 MLJ 252 : 37 LW 74 : 1933 MWN 215;
Pethu Reddiar v. Chidambara Reddiar, AIR 1931 Mad 533 : 1931 MWN 390 :131 IC 1:
In re Lakshminarayana Chettiyar & another, AIR 1954 Mad 594 : 1954 1 MLJ 403 : 67 LW 123 : 1 LR 1954 Mad 389 (FB);
Sampath Kumara Iyengar & Others v. Perumal dasari and other, 1958 11 MLJ 412;
Andi and others v. Nallayya Pillari, AIR 1962 Mad 416 : 1962 1 MLJ 172 :74 LW 746 : 1 LR 1962 Mad 117
Suit to declare adoption and Wills invalid - Narpina Veeramma v. Gaadde Venkatarasamma and another, AIR 1935 Mad 313 : 68 MLJ 280 : 4 LW 452 : 1935 MWN 223 : 159 IC 532;
Suit to recovery of moneys due under several deposits from a trustee " Ramasami v. Ramasami, AIR 1931 Mad. 712 : 61 MLJ 680 : 34 LW 378;
Suit for partition and accounts " Manickam Pillai v. Murugesan Pillai , Air 1933 Mad 431 : 64 MLJ 576 : 37 LW 748 : 1933 MWN 631 : 143 IC 755;
Suit to set aside will and alienations " Ramakrishnayya v. Seshayya, AIR 1935 Mad 346; 68 MLJ 369;
Suit for specific performance and possession " Sundara Ramanuja Naidu v. Sivalingam Pillai, AIR 1924 Mad 369 ; 45 MLJ 431 : 18 LW 333 ; 1 LR 47 Mad 190 ; 77 IC 542 (DB)
Suit for recovery of money and other movables " Amarnath v. Thakurdas, ILR 3 All 131;
Suit for recovery of land and trees thereon " Kullappa Goundar v. Abdul Rahim Sahib , 5 LW 270 ; 1 LR 40 Mad 824 : 39 IC 54;
Suit by landlord against several ryots for enhancement of rent " The rajah of Vizianagarm v. The Government rep. by the Government Pleader, AIR 1932 Mad 667 : 63 MLJ 73 :36 LW 191 : 1932 MWN 777 : 139 IC 102:
Suit against tenants for declaration that they have no permanent right of occupancy " Sampath Kumar Iyengar and others v. Perumaldasari & Others , 1958 11 MLJ 412.
Suit by landlord against several tenants under a single right " Andi and others v. Nallayya Pillai, AIR 1962 Mad 416 ; 1962 1 MLJ 172 ; 74 LW 746 ; 1 LR 1962 Mad 117.
Single relief is prayed for though on different cause of action single court fee is payable " Neelakandan Nambudripad and others v. Jimnilai Ananthakrishna Iyer and others , 16 MLJ 462 ; 1 MLJ 426 ; ILR 30 MAD 61.
(3) Where a suit embraces two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several causes of action;
Provided that, where the cause of action in respect of reliefs claimed alternatively against the same person arise out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the fees chargeable on them.
Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to affect any power conferred upon a court Rule 6 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908).
(4) The provision of this Section shall apply mutatis mutandis to memoranda of appeals, applications, petitions and statements.
Explanation " For the purpose of this Section, a suit for possession of immovable property and for mesne profits shall be deemed to be based on the same cause of action.
7. Determination of market value -
(1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
Definition of market value " Raja Gopala Naidu v. Ramasubramanya Aiyer, AIR 1923 MAD 19; 45 MLJ 274 ; 18 LW 326 ; ILR 46 MAD 782 ; 33 MLT 21 : 1923 MEN 550 : 74 IC 198 : 1988 I MLJ 88.
Manmath Nath Milter v. Secretary of State for India in council ILR 25 Cal 194 (PC)
(2) The market value of land in suits falling under Sections 25 (a) , 25 (b), 27 (a) , 29, 30, 37 (1), 37 (3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be-
(a) where the land is ryotwari land " thirty times the survey assessment on the land ;
Provided that, where the land forms part of a survey field and is not separately assessed to revenue, the value of such part shall be deemed to be thirty times such proportion of the survey assessment as the part bears to the entire survey field.
Explanation " Lands in the areas in which the Malabal Tenancy Act, 1929 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1930), is in force shall be regarded as ryotwari lands.
Remissions of revenue are not to be considered in calculating the value " Haji Mohamed Ibrahim and other v. M.Khan Chand and Another, Air 1937 All 657.
Revenue Records is the key note for ascertainment of the market value - Sarnapandi Nadar v. Sivasubramania Nadar and Others, 1976 TLNJ 69.
Court cannot presume that the property is used as a building site hence it cannot be valued as ryotwari land. " T.K.M. Alagappa Chetty v.Saminathan Chetty and Others, AIR 1933 MAD 367; 1933 MWN 1128 142 IC 195;
M.O. Jugaraj & Others v. M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd, 81 LW 502;
Trees have to be valued for computing the market value " Sri Sri Sathyabhiagna Theertha Swamivaru v. Mundhru NArasayya, AIR 1948 MAD 44 ; 1947 11 MLJ 182 : 60 LW 492 ; 1947 MWN 495
Trees need not be valued separately " Subramaniya Iyer v. Rama Iyer, AIR 1927 MAD 1002 (DB) ; 54 MLJ 67 ; 27 LW 489;
Overruled in Kesanna v. Boyabalagangappa , AIR 1947 MAD 297 ; 1947 1 MLJ 201 ; 60 LW 183 ; 1947 MWN 169 ; ILR 1947 MAD 643: 230 IC 448 (FB)
See also " Sengoda Nadar v. Duraisamy Gounder , AIR 1971 MAD 380 1970 11 643 ; 83 728 ; P.K. Subramaniya Chettiar v. Uthaman Chettiar , AIR 1974 MAD 5 ; 1973 1 MLJ 386 ; 86 LW 511;
Allegations in the plaint to be considered " SRM AIRS SP Sathappa Chettiyar v. SRM AR RM Ramanathan Chettiyar , AIR 1958 SC 245 ; 1958 ; 1 MLJ (SC) 148 ; 1958 SCJ 407 ; 1958 ANWR (SC) 1481 : 1958 SCR 1021;
Valuation by the plaintiff should not be arbitrary and whimsical " Abdulhamid Shameree v. abdul Majid and others , AIR 1988 SC 1150 ; 1988 2 SCC 575;
Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works Ltd. V Chief Inspector of Stamps, AIR 1968 SC 102 ; 1968 1 SC WR 69 : 1968 1 SCA 59 : 1968 1 SCJ 633 : 1967 3 SCR 920.
Suit by landlord against number of lessees, cause of action distinct and several to be valued separately, Manickam Pillai and other v. Santhanam Muthirian, 1958 71 MLJ 536.
Deliberate undervaluation " Plaint liable to be rejected " Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar , AIR 1979 SC 989 : 1979 11 MLJ (SC) 19 ; 1980 1 SCC 616 ; 1979 2 SCJ 141 ; 1979 3 SCR 385;
Substance to be looked into and not the form - Shamser Singh v. Rajinder Prasad & Others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 ; 1974 1 SCJ 270 ;SCD 844;
Sankaranarayan Pillai and another v. Kandasamy Pillai, AIR 1956 MAD 670 ; 1956 11 MLJ 411 ; 68 LW 574 ; 1955 MWN 593 : 1 LR 1956 MAD 307 (FB)
Relief is for recovery of possession " Valued under Sec 43 (1) (d) whether it should be under Sec.25 (d) on the basis of market value. Parvathi v. Arumugham, 1988 11 MLJ 92.
Court to consider the real nature of the suit plaintiff cannot allow to omit substantial relief. Krishnaswamy v. Rangaswamy Kounder and another , 1969 11 MLJ 412;
(b) Where the land is situated in an estate as defined in sun-section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1908 ), not being a land of the description mentioned in Sub-clause (g) and such estate has been taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Tamil Nadu ACT XXVI of 1948) " thirty times the land revenue payable on the land under Section 23 of that Act; but if a ryotwari settlement has since been effected in pursuance of Section 22 of that Act, in respect of such land, thirty times the assessment as so fixed ;
(c ) where the land is situated in an estate which became an estate under the Tamil Nadu Estate Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1936 ) " thirty times of the rent of payable for the land as fixed under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1947);
(d) where the land is an "estate" as defined in the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1908);
(i) where separate peishkush is recorded in the Collector's register as payable for the estate " thirty times such peishkush;
(ii) in any other case " thirty times the annual melvaram realizable from the estate;
(e) where the land is a minor inam held under inam title deed " thirty times the assessment as noted in the village ˜B' Register,
(f) where the land is in an inam village which is not an "estate" as defined in Subsection (2) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Estate Land Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1908) " thirty times the rent payable in respect of it;
(g) where the land is a house-site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or is land not falling within the foregoing description "its market value;
1. Omitted by Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1985. [(3) Omitted.]
8. Set off or counter claim -
A written statement pleading a set off or counter claim shall be chargeable with fee in the same manner as a plaint.
Definition of set-off and counter claim _ Southern Alloy Foundries Pvt. Ltd. V. Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Limited., 1987 TLNJ 178;
Ad valorem Court fee has to be paid for counter claim or set-off (1) _Sitarama Iyer v. Ramanuja Madualiar, AIR 1933 Mad 203 : 142 IC 719; Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1935 Mad. 115 : 68 MLJ 23 : 41 LW 27 : 1935 MWN 24 : ILR 58 Mad. 115 : 68 MLJ 23: 41 LW 27 : 1935 MWN 24 : ILR 58 Mad. 338 : 154 IC 432;
Plea of adjustment or payment is not set off "defendant need not pay court fee for there_
A. Koyan and another v. Rajammal and another, AIR 1953 Mad 853 : 1953 1 MLJ 800;
Ambica Palayacat Co. v. Kannappa Pillai, AIR 1952 Mad. 91 ; 1951 11 MLJ 182 ; 64 LW 675 ; 1951 MWN 584;
GIO Vanola BInny Ltd; v. Indian Institute of Technology Madras, 1992 2 LW 444;
Two suits _ Plaintiff in one sued as defendant in the other on the same transaction _ Set off in the written statement in one suit and valorem court fee not payable, since two suits have been filed. PRM Adhimugthu Nadar v. KCK Subramania Nadar, 1949 1 MLJ 330;
See also Indian Bank by its custodian v. S. Krishnaswamy and another, 1989 TLNJ 87;
Difference of set off and counter claim explained _ T.A.M. Subramaniam Chettiar v. K.M. Shanmugham, 1966 I MLJ 200 ; AIR 1967 Mad. 300;
Payment of cost improvement by defendant as condition for surrendering possession is not a counter claim _ Appasamy Chettiar v. Sri parvatha Vadham Sametha Ramanatheswara Chowdombigai Amman Temple, AIR 1962 Mad 527 ; 1961 11 MLJ 34 ; 74 LW 304.
Claim for improvements by defendant in a mortgage suit does not amount to counter claim _ Uthanda Rama Pillai v. Arumugam Pillai, 86 LW 676. Overruling Alamelu Ammal v. Thayarammal, AIR 1961 Mad 355 : 73 LW 655;
Set of exceeds plaint amount court fee is payable on the entire amount._
Chennappa v. Raghanatha 1 MLJ 598 : 1 LR 15 Mad 2; Ratanlal v. Madhari and another, AIR 1950 All 237;
9. Documents failing under two or more descriptions-
Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Section, a document falling within two or more descriptions in this Act shall, where the fees chargeable thereunder are different, be chargeable only with the highest of such fees:
Provided that, where one of such descriptions is special and another general, the fee chargeable shall be the fee appropriate to the special description.
Document in question is instrument of partition as well as dissolution of partnership " liable to be charged to stamp duty as a partition which carries higher fee specialibus non derogant " The Secretary, Board of Revenue v. RM PL WRM Alagappa Chettiar and another _ AIR 1937 Mad. 308 : 45 LW 123 : 1937 1 MLJ 175 : 1937 MWN 379 : ILR 1937 Mad 553 : 169 IC 439;
Determination of Fee
10. Statement of particulars of subject matter of suit and plaintiff's valuation thereof-
In every suit in which the fee payable under this Act on the plaint depends on the market value of the subject-matter of the suit, the plaintiff shall file with the plaint, a statement in the prescribed form, of particulars of the subject matter of the suit and his valuation thereof unless such particulars and the valuation are contained in the plaint,
Plaint should give the details as to how the annual revenue or rent is calculated, D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram, 1988 (11) LW 161.
11. Decision as to proper fee in the High Court-
Where, in a suit instituted in the High Court in which a fee is payable under this Act, any difference arises between the officer whose duty it is to see that proper fee is paid and any party as to the necessity of paying a fee or the amount thereof, the question shall be referred to the Taxing Officer who shall decide the same:
Provided that, if in the opinion of the Taxing Officer, the question is one of general importance, he may refer it to the Chief Justice of the High Court or such Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint, either generally or specially in this behalf.
Provided further that, when the case comes up for disposal before the court, the decision of the Taxing Officer may be reviewed by the court.
Scope of old Act _ Mohamed Ishaq Sahib v. Mohamed Mohideen and another, AIR 1922 Mad 421;43 MLJ 436 : ILR 45 Mad. 849
Under old Act order of taxing judge is final. SRMS ARS S.P. Sathappa Chettiar v. SRM ARRM Ramanathan Chettair, AIR 1958 SC 245 : 1958 1 MLJ (SC) 148 : 1958 SCJ 407 : 1958 SCR 102 : 1958 I AN WR (SC) 148.
Art 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to question the decision of the taxing officer _ Santosh Kumar Ganguly and another v. Registrar, Appellate Side High Court, Calcutta and Another, AIR 1959 Cal. 317 : 63 MWN 33;
12. Decision as to proper fee in other courts.-
(1) In every suit instituted in any court other that the High Court, the court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under Section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction in the manner specified in the succeeding Subsections.
(2) Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding Subsection, not later, plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit.
(3) A defendant added after issues have been framed on the merits of the claim may, in the written statement filed by him, plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim, and if the court finds that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall follow the procedure laid down in Subsection (2).
Explanation- Nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to a defendant added as a successor or a representative in interest of a defendant who was on record before issues were framed on the merits of the claim and who had an opportunity to file a written statement pleading that the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued or that the fee paid was not sufficient.
(4) (a) Whenever a case comes up before a court of appeal, it shall be lawful for the court, either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower court determine the proper fee payable thereon.
Explanation " A case shall be deemed to come before a court of appeal even if the appeal relates only to a part of the subject-matter of the suit.
(b) If the court of appeal decides that the fee paid in the lower court is not sufficient, the court shall require the party liable to pay the deficit fee within such time as may be fixed by it.
(c) If the deficit fee is not paid within the time fixed and the default is in respect of a relief which has been dismissed by the lower court and which the appellant seeks in appeal, the appeals shall be dismissed, but if the default is in respect of a relief which has been decreed by the lower court, the deficit fee shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
(d) If the fee paid in the lower court is in excess, the court shall direct the refund of the excess to the party who is entitled to it.
(5) All questions as to value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts arising on the written statement of a defendant shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim.
Explanation " In this Section, the expression " merits of the claim" refers to matters which arise for determination in the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, mis-joinder of parties and causes of action, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain or try the suit or the fee payable but inclusive of matters arising on pleas of res judicata, limitation and the like.
Scheme of section was that the revenue was not defrauded In Sri Lakshmi Ammal AIR 1925 Mad 96 : 49 MLJ 608;
Competent court to decide the question of Court fee is where the plaint or Memorandum of appeal was presented and such decision was final, High Court alone can re-open the question under Sec. 12 (2) _ if it had been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue _ Sankara Narayana Kadamba Lithayya v. Vasudeva Achyutha Hebbara and Others _ AIR 1949 Mad 395 : 1948 11 MLJ 553 : 61 LW 809 : 1949 MWN 839, and not the trial court at the subsequent stage of the proceeding _ Lakshmana Aiyar v. Planiappa Chettiar, AIR 1935 Mad 47 : 69 MLJ 479 : 4 LW 354.
13. Additional fee on issues framed-
Where a party becomes liable to pay additional fee by reason of an issue framed in the suit, the provisions of the last foregoing Section shall apply to the determination and levy of such additional fee subject to the modification that where the party liable does not pay such additional fee within the time allowed, the court shall strike off the issue and proceed to hear and decide the other issues in the case.
14. Relinquishment of portion of claim-
A plaintiff who has been called upon to pay additional fee may relinquish a part of his claim and apply to have the plaint amended so that the fee paid would be adequate for the claim made in the plaint as amended. The court shall allow such application on such terms as it considers just and shall proceed to hear and decide the claim made in the plaint as amended, provided that the plaintiff shall not be permitted at any later stage of the suit to add to the claim the part so relinquished.
15. Fee payable on written statements-
Where fee is payable under this Act on a written statement filed by a defendant, the provisions of Section 12 shall apply to the determination and levy of the fee payable on such written statement, the defendant concerned being regarded for the said purpose as the plaintiff and the plaintiff or the co-defendant or the third party against whom the claim is made being regarded as the defendant.
16. Fee payable on appeals etc.-
The provisions of Section 10 to 14 relating to the determination and levy of fee on plaints in suits shall apply mutatis mutandis to the determination and levy of fee in respect of a memorandum of appeal, cross objection or other proceeding in second appeal or under the Letters Patent.
17. Fee payable on petitions, application, etc.-
The provisions of Section 10 to 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the determinations and levy of fee in respect of petitions, applications and other proceedings in court in the same way as they apply to the determination and levy of fee on plaints in suits.
18. Court fee Examiners-
(1) The High Court may depute officers to be designated Court-fee Examiners to inspect the records of subordinate courts with a view to examine the correctness of representation made to, and orders passed by court on question relating to valuation of subject-matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in such courts.
(2) Questions raised in reports submitted by such Court fee Examiners and relating to any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in a court shall be heard and decided by such court; and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in hearing and deciding a question raised in any such report, it shall be lawful for the court to review an earlier decision given by the court on the same question.
19. Inquiry and commission.-
For the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of a suit or other proceedings has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient the court may hold such inquiry as it considered proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the court.
20. Notice to the State Government-
In any inquiry relating to the fee payable on a plaint, written statement, petition, memorandum of appeal or other document, or to the valuation of the subject matter of the claim to which the plaint, written statement, petition, memorandum of appeal or other document relates, in so far as such valuation affects the fee payable, the court may, if it consider it just or necessary to do so, give notice to the State Government; and where such notice is given, the proceedings as respects the determination of the question or questions aforesaid, and the count's decision on such question or questions shall, when it passes a decree or final order in such suit or proceeding, be deemed to form part of such decree or final order.
Computation of Fee
21. Fee how reckoned-
The fee payable under this Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II.
Inserted by Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1960. [ 21-A. Fee to be computed to the nearest multiple of five naye paise- In the determination and computation of the amount of fee payable under this Act, any fraction of five naye paise or less than two and a half naye paise shall be disregarded and any fraction of five naye paise equal to, or exceeding two and a hald naye paise shall by regarded as five naye paise]
22. Suit for money-
In a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
Added by Sec.4 and Schedule II of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965 [ Explanation " For the purpose of this section, the expression ˜ suit for money' shall, in respect of the transferred territory also include suits for rent, pattom, michavaram, adukkuvathu, jenmikaram, or other dues of a like nature.]
Difference of Sec. 22 and Sec.33
Kalidas Narasing v. Union of India and others- AIR 1959 Bom. 436 : 1 LR 1959 Bom. 537;
Prosannadev Raikat v. Purna Chandra Shaka and other " AIR 1934 Cal. 674.
If specific amount is claimed it is money suit.
Ramakrishna Reddy v. Kota Reddi " 16 MLJ 58 ; 1 LR 30 MAD 96
A suit for commission amount
Hariyimal v. Dhanpal 18 Bom, 696 :15 SLR 82 : 64 IC 62;
Pochalal v. Umedram " AIR 1928 Bom. 476 : ILR 52 Bom 904 ;
Suit for arrears of Maintenance without prayer for future maintenance
Govind V. Vithabal " AIR 1925 Wag. 435 : 87 IC 911
A suit of dower
Sabir Hussain v. Faizand Hasan " AIR 1932 All 406 : ILR 54 All 608
A suit for ascertained sum of Cess due
Phulartand Coal Co. V. Burrakar Coal Co. " AIR 1930 Pab . 605 :128 IC 795;
A suit for rent
Perumal v. Motumul " 18 ALJ 321 : ILR 42 All 353 : 54 IC 809;
A suit for damages based on fraud
Raghavaji Sait v. Annamalai " 17 MLJ 625
A suit for specific performance of contract of guarantee or for compensation for breach of contract
D.S. Abraham and Co. v. Ebrahim Gorabhoy " AIR 1925 Rang. 65 : 47 IC 992
Not money suits:
A suit by a widow of a deceased Mohamedan for administration of estate and other reliefs " the court fee is payable as a suit for administration (Sec. 39 and not under Sec. 37 read with Sec. 22)
Johara Bibi v. Zilaika Bivi and others " 1979 I MLJ 359 : 92 LW 239: ILR 1979 11 Mad . 329;
A suit for higher rent
Sohagmal v. New East India Press Co. Ltd., Bombay (36-43) Tax Dec. Nag103;
A Suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of Government promissory notes is not a suit for money
Narindar Singh v. Kuldip Sigh _ AIR 1940 Lah 26 : 188 IC 461 (DB)
A suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is liable to pay achu palisha (a kind of royality payable to a hill owner) at a rate lower than the defendant's claim Ryrappan Kutty v. K.T. Chathathut Kutti_ AIR 1924 Mad. 621 : 46 MLJ 377 : 79 IC 334 : 19 LW 608 : 24 MLJ 271;
Old Sec. 7 (1) (Present Sec. 22 ) did not include a Memorandum of appeal against a decree in suit by landlord for commutation of grain rent into money suit- AIR 1924 Mad 623 : 46 MLJ 450 : 19 LW 629 : 34 MLT 216 : 78 IC 968 (DB)
23. Suits for maintenance and annuities -
In the suits hereinafter mentioned, fee shall be computed as follows:-
(a) in a suit for maintenance, on the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
(b) in a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sough to be enhanced or reduced;
(c) in a suit for annuities or other sums payable periodically, on five times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
Provided that, where the annuity is payable for less than five years, the fee shall be computed on the aggregate of the sums payable.
Provided further that, a suit for enhancement of maintenance shall be instituted in a court which will have jurisdiction to receive a suit for maintenance at the enhanced rate claimed and one fore reduction of maintenance shall be instituted in a court which will have jurisdiction to receive a suit for maintenance at the rate which is sought to be reduced.
Definition of maintenance and annuity
Prasanna Deb v. Purna Chandra _ AIR 1934 Cal. 674 : 61 Cal 513 : 152 IC 753
Difference between maintenance and annuity
Saroja and others v. Ramiyammal and another _ 85 LW 500
Suit for cancellation of a decree for payment of maintenance to a wife on the dissolution of the marriage till the re-marriage court fees payable under Sec. 40 and not under Section 23
V. Somasundaram v. Smt. Nalini Somasundaram " AIR 1959
Bingi Neelamma v. Agadi Mareppa " AIR 936 Mad 388 : 70 MLJ 128 : 43 742 : 1936 MWN 600 : 163 IC 471 (DB)
24. Suits for movable property "
(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed-
(a) Where the subject matter has a market value , on such value;
(b) where the subject matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.
(2) (a) In a suit for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document-
(i) where the plaint alleges denial of the plaintiff's title to the money or the property secured by the document, or
(ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the money or the property secured by the document;
Provided that where the allegation in the plaint or the issue framed relates only to a portion of the amount or property, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of such portion of the amount or on one fourth of the market value of such portion of the property.
(b) In a suit for possession of documents of title where the plaintiff's title to the money or the property secured by the document is not denied, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.
Explanation " The expression " document of title" means a document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, in any property.
"Documents of title" will include promissory notes, bonds, Government securities etc., and a suit for recovery of such documents and not for recovery of moneys due under the documents comes under this section.
Venkata Rao v. Ssesharattama " AIR 1934 Mad 730 : 67 MLJ 680 : 40 LW 709 : 1934 MWN 1321 : ILR 58 Mad 228;
Difference between Mortgage and pledge. Pledge article alone come under this section.
Official Assignee, Madras v. H.D. Hukamchand Khimsura " 1940 11 MLJ 891.
25. Suit for declaration "
In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
(c) where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher;
(d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher.
To remove the legal obstacle prayer of declaration is necessary-defined in Sri Raja Nayini Venkata Ranga Rao v. Sri Raja Jadakammalla Sita Ramachanadra Rao " AIR 1941 Mad 91 : 1940 11 MLJ 655 : 52 LW 610 : 1940 MWN 1062 : 1 LR 1941 Mad. 157 : 195 IC 439;
In deciding the question of court fee court should look into the substantive relief that is asked for.
Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad and other _ AIR 1973 SC 2384 : 1974 1 SCJ 270 : 1973 SCD 844;
Declaration and injunction-subject matter of suit along need be valued - valuation of entire property not necessary- unless it also part of the dispute Vaiyapuri Chetty v. Ramachandra Thevar - AIR 1925 Mad 1143 : 21 LW 715 : 89 IC 938
Declaration that father's alienation is not binding and valorem fee to be paid V.N. Alagar Aiyengar v. Srinivasa Iyengar and another - AIR 1925 Mad 1248 : 49 MLJ 598 : 22 LW 550 : 1925 MWN 649 : 91 IC 78.
Suit for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the house and for declarating mortgage deed executed by the defendants ineffective "suit falls under Sec.7 (IV)(C) of old Act.
Mohammed Hayat Khan v. Jarpat Rai-Babu Ram and another _ AIR 1936 Lahore 703 : 165 IC 760;
Ramaswami Aiyer v.Ammayee Ammal " 1943 I MLJ 316;
Suit for declaration that the defendants had no right in certain immovable property and for injunction " further prayer for partition " suit is one of declaratory nature " Court fee payable under Sec. 7 (IV) (C )
Bethasani naicker and another v. Nagammal and others " AIR 1931 MAD 69 ; 33 LW 68 : 129 IC 625;
Suit for partition, possession and declaration after setting aside previous alienation "plaintiff's share determines valuation " Sect. 7 (iv) ( c) applicable.
Koraga Gowda and another v. Somappa Gowda and another " AIR 1933 Mad 93; 36 LW 793 : 1932 MWN 1322: 140 IC 585;
Suit for declaration that plaintiff's have customary rights to graze cattle etc., in a forest area belonging to another is not a suit for title Sec. 7 (iv) (c ) is not applicable " only Sec. 7 (iv) ( c) applies ceasements)
In re Rayah K.J.V. Naidu " AIR 1946 MAD 235; 1946 1 MLJ 61; 59 LW 41; 1946 MWN 80 x ; ILR 1946 MAD 885.
Suit for declaration that a deed was not valid in law and for possession " court fee payable under old Act S.7 (IV-A)
Thirumalyandi Thevar v. Uthanda Thevar AIR 1947 MAD 1947 1 MLJ 212; 60 LW 207 ; 1947 MEN 180;
Inam land with coconut trees-land to be value under Sec. 7 (iv) ( c )
Thirupathaiah v. Mangapathi Rao " AIR 1948 MAD 344 ; 1948 I MLJ 193; 61 LW 179 ; 1948 MWN 175;
Court fee on appeal " appeal relief relinguished " court fee need not pay for relinguished relief.
Nemichand and another v. Edward Mills and Co. Ltd., - AIR 1953 SC 28 ; 7952 SCJ 674 ; 1952 SCA 817 ; 1953 1 MLJ 117 (S.C)
With reference to immovable property " expression in Sec.25 (b) and Sec. 7 (iv) (c ) of the old Act are same. Suit for declaration of right to fishery and long grass in and consequential injunction falls under Sec.25 (d)
Venkatakrishna Reddiar and others v. Swamikannu Gounder and others " AIR 1972 MAD 129 ; 84 LW 848 ; 1972 TLNJ 72
Difference of Sec. 25 (b) and Sec. 40 (1) suit for declaration and injunction in respect of immovable property challenging a collusive decree falls under sec. (25 (b) when the vendee was not co-nominee party in the partition suit.
Shanmuga Udayar & another v. Govinda Udayar and another " AIR 1974 MAD 127 : 1973 11 MLJ 22 : 86 LW 201.
Difference of Sec . 25 (d) and Sec. 40 " partition suit court fee payable under Sec. 40;
Palaniswami v. Subbaraya Gounder " Air 1975 MAD 398 : 1975 11 MLJ 161: 88 LW 504,
Difference of Sec. 25 (b) and Sec. 40 (1) cancellation of decree Sec. 40 (1) applied.
S. Krishnan Nair and another v. N. Rugmaniamma " AIR 1976 MAD 208 ; 1976 1 MLJ I : 89 LW 370
Difference of Sec. 25 (a) & Sec. 40 " Declaration that preliminary decree in prior suit is null and void " sec 40 applies.
Raja & Others v. Radha Ammal and others 1988 1 LW 82 : 1988 TLNJ 44.
Relief of declaration if granted would have effect of nullifying demand made no need to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount mentioned in the tariff.
Rama Udayar v. T.N.E.B " 1990 TLNJ 107
M/s. Selvakumar Rice Mills v. T.N.E.B. " 99 LW 740;
Contraview in Mahaveerchand v. Town Panchayat 1984 11 MLJ 45;
Sec. 25 (a) and Sec. 52; Suit by water Board for recovery of possession " Court fee as per G.O. proper. Ponnusamy and others v. Tamil Nadu State Water Board 1981 1 MLJ 252: 94 LW 55 : 1980 TLNJ 341 (DB)
Sec. 25 (d) and Sec. 40 " Declaration that hundies executed were invalid for specific amounts " court fee payable under Sec. 40.
Mrs. Kasturi and other v. seth Ghanshandas Vensimal " 1979 11 MLJ 11: 1979 TLNJ 51
Sec 25 (a) and Sec. 28 " Suit by rival claimants only Sec. 28 applied.
Janardhana Mudaliar vs. Nataraj's Mudaliar 1972 TLNJ 20
Sec 25 (b) and (D) " Declaration that court sale is a nullity Sec. 25 (d) not applicable.
Kripa Shankar v. Thiruvallur M.C. and another 1975 TLNJ 98
Sec . 25 (b) and (d) " Award passed in Land Acquisition proceedings " Declaration and injunction restraining the defendant from withdrawing the amount - Sec. 25 (d) applies. K.R.P. Shanmughan Chettiar v. Muthukarupu Achi " 1972 TLNJ 414;
Sec. 25 (b) and Sec. 40 " Declaration and injunction " plaintiff not co- nominee party in the prior proceedings " sec 25 (b) applicable.
Arunchala Udayar v. Govinda Udayar and others " 1972 TLNJ 628;
Suit for declaration of invalidity of alienation and appointment of receiver-court fee payable under Ar. 17 (b) of Sec. 11 and not under Sec. 7 (iv) (c )
Karuppana Thevar vs. Angammal & others - AIR 1926 MAD 678 ; 51 MLJ 67 : 23 LW 581 : 96 IC 129;
Reversioner's suit against widow and alienees from her not binding and for injunction " declaration to be obtained before getting injunction.
Vegesana Kanakarayu v. Vegesana Venkatraju & others " 68 MLJ 248.
Suit for declaration by the reversioner that alienation is not binding " valuation under Art 17-A (1) of the amended act 1922.
Geddam Venkamma and another v. Geddam Venkataramayya and others " 1948 11 MLJ 651;
Suit to enforce right to levy fees in the market and prohibit person refusing to pay the fees from entering the market " suit is one for declaration Muthuswami Raja v. Ramalingam Chettiar " 1955 1 MLJ (NRC)
R.D. Somasundaram Pillai ; person of unsound mind by next friend v. Janakiammal and others " 1955 1 MLJ 310;
Sec. 6(3) and Sec. 25 (d) " Suit against number of tenants that they have no permanent right of occupancy single cause of action " C.F. paid U/sec. 25 (d) proper Sampathkumara Ayyangar v. Perumal Dhasari " 1958 11 MLJ 412;
Declaration that a particular business belongs to the plaintiff Sec. 25 (d) applies.
Dr. Arthur Nathanial and another v. Dr. R.P. Nathanial " 1962 11 MLJ 420: 75 LW 531
Declaration that earlier mortgage decrees were null and void claim falls under Sec. 25 (b) and not under Sec. 25 (d)
Kulitalal Bank Ltd. V. Vedavalli Ammal and others " 1963 1 MLJ 219 ; 79 LW 27 : ILR 1962 MAD 368;
Declaration that equitable mortgage created by his vendor was not binding on him " not a party to the document; falls under Sec. 25 (d) and not under Sec. 40 .
K. Sundaramurthy Mudaliar v. Manlckammal and another " 1964 1 MLJ 152 ;
Declaration of rental right " not about title sec.25 (d) applies.
Sahul Hammed v. Kanda Iyer and another " 1967 11 MLJ 536 ; 80 LW 392
T.Devarajulu Naidu v. Kondammal and another " AIR 1925 MAD 427 ; 20 LW 754 : 80 IC 929;
Declaration and Khas possession from the alienees that their vendor had no title " governed by sec. 25 (a) and not sec. 40
Kaka Haji Mojammed Ishag Sahib v. Kaka Mohamed Sadiq Sahib and another " 1970 1 MLJ 207 ; 82 LW 622;
Declaration that sale held under co-operative societies Act is not binding " Sec 25 (d) applies.
Nachimuthu Gounder v. Aval Naikenpathy Co-operative Society " 1971 1 MLJ 24; 83 LW 793;
Sec. 7 and Sec. 25 (b) Declaration suit-motor and pumpset attached to land " necessarily to be valued separately. P.N. Subramanian Chettiar v. P.N. Uthaman Chettiar, AIR 1974 Mad 5 : 1973 1 MLJ 386 ; 86 LW 511;
Sec. 25 (d) and Sec. 40 (1) Declaration suit-sale of property by the Revenue Authorties was null and void. Sec. 40 applies.
Kappurama Mudaliar v. Government of Tamil Nadu " 99 LW 412.
Sec. 25 and Sec. 40 ; Document is forgery " Sec. 40 not applicable .
Alamelu China Kannammal v. Mari C. Kammala " 1979 11 MLJ 8 : 92 LW 306
Scope and applicability of Sec. 1993 TLNJ 203
Sec 25 (d) and Sec. 40 (1) Declaration suit " Revenue Sale is null and void " sec.40 applies.
Kuppurama Mudaliar v. Government of Tamil Nadu " AIR 1979 MAD 263 ; 92 LW 269 : ILR 1979 (II) M 418;
Declaration " decree in an earlier suit partition is null and void as the plaintiff's were minors and guardian acted against them "Sec 40 applies.
Sec.25 & Sec. 50 " Declaration suit " Special Office of Co-operative Society was not competent to admit members and for injunction " Court fee payable under Sec. 25 (d)
Kanchepuram Murugan Silk Weavers Co-operative production and Sales society by its special officer v. Kanchepuram Murugan Silk Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society by members " 1991 11 MLJ 178;
Sec. 25 " Separate declarations in the same suit "court fee has to be paid in respect of each declaration.
Lakshmiammal v. Janamejayan Nambiar " 4 MLJ 183 (DB)
Daivachillaya Pillai v. Ponnathal " ILR 18 MAD 459 (DB)
Further relief defined ; Abdul Khader v. Mohamed " ILR 15 Mad 15;
Mohd. Yumus v. Syed Unnissa AIR 1961 SC 808;
Kanniammal v. Sankar Krishnamurthy " AIR 1919 MAD 956 ; 33 MLJ 676 : 43 IC 25.
Chellammal and others v. Ayamperumal Kudumban and others " AIR 1937 MAD 495 : 1936 MWN 770 : 169 IC 348:
26. Adoption suits -
In a suit for a declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption, fee shall be payable at the following rates :-
27. Suit for injunction "
In a suit for injunction "
(a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and
(i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or
(ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property,
Fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
(b) Where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is value in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher.
(c ) in any other case, whether the subject matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher.
Avernments in the plaint are material and not the allegations in the written statement. If cause of action is based on denial of title Sub Section (2) will operate.
Family Manager Ponnusamy Gounder v. Chinnana Gounder and others " AIR 1956 MAD 52 : 1955 11 MLJ 323 : 68 LW 578;
Prayer for declaration and consequential relief " discussed.
Rajanayami Venkata Ranga Rao v. Sri Rajatadaka Malla Sita Ramachandra Rao " AIR 1941 MAD 91 : 1940 11 MLJ 655 : 52 LW 610: 1940 MWN 1062 : ILR 1941 MAD 157;
Plaintiff can sue for injunction.
AL VR CT Veerappa Chettiar v. Arunachalam Chettiar " AIR 1936 MAD 200 : 43 LW 334 : 1936 MWN 113 : 160 IC 993;
Defendant is threatening to disturb possession of immovable property " sit can be leave injunction.
Family Manager Ponnusami Gouder vs. Chinna Gounder " AIR 1956 MAD 52 : 1955 11 MLJ 323; 68 LW 578;
Denial of title has to be gathered from the plaint and not from the written statement. Nooney Kondiah v. Naidu Ramana Reddy " AIR 1971 AP 142: 1970 11 AN WR 751;
Declaration that defendant was bound to construct his house in accordance with the conditions laid down by municipality and for injunction " plaintiff's valuation cannot be questioned.
HR Patel v. C.G. Venkatalakshmma " AIR 1955 Mysore 65 (FB) Sec. also Dongarsi Das v. Municipal Committee, Fazika AIR 1929 LAH 566 : 116 IC 908 (DB)
Suit for injunction " restraining the defendant from opening certain windows and upper story " valuation under old Sec. 7 (iv) (c ) was correct " guruvajamma v. venkata krishanama Chetty ILR 24 MAD 34 (DB)
See. Also Sri Rajananyani Venkata Rengo Rao v. Sri Raja Jedukamulla Sita Ramachandra Rao AIR 1941 MAD 91 : 1940 11 MLJ 655-52 LW 610: 1940 MWN 1062 : ILR 1941 MAD 91 : 195 IC 439;
Easement suit fell under old sec. 7 (iv) (c ) corresponding to present sec.31 " Pappukannu Anni v. Topiah Mudaliar and another AIR 1952 MAD 41 : 1952 11 MLJ 108;
Suit for declaration and injunction that Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies award was valid " payment of court fee on the relief of declaration is valid.
R.S. Venkataswami Naicker vs. Chinnapalayam co-operative society AIR 1954 MAD 148;
To remove obstacle- prayer for declaration is necessary. Mahant Pururshotham Das and others v. Har Narain and others .AIR 1978 Delhi 114 (FB)
Suit by lessee for injunction against lessor-not to disturb possession " court fee on national value.
Substance of relief to avoid sale deed-declaration is necessary.
Kayanthan Rochen v. Chinnaya Roche AIR 1939 MAD 435 : 1939 1 MLJ 425 ; 1939 MWN 1114 . Court has to consider the substantive relief to decide the court fee. Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad AIR 1973 SC 2384; 1974 1 SCJ 270 : 1973 SCD 844;
Suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant from alienating to any one and also for mandatory injunction to desist defendant to transfer to particularly by putting up plaintiff in management. Court fee payable see 1995 TLNJ 217.
28. Suits relating to trust property "
In a suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaratory decree, whether with or without consequential relief in respect of it, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and an person who has ceased to be trustee, fee shall be computed on one-fifth of the market value of the property subject to a maximum fee of rupees two hundred or where the property has no market value, on rupees one thousand ;
Provided that, where the property does not have a market value, value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of court shall be such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
Explanation " For the purpose of this Section, property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or other religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be trust property and the manager of any such property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof.
Applicability of section to suit for recovery of property "suit must be between the trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who has ceased to be a trustee. Sri La Sri Somasundara Gnana Desiga Swamigal vs. Sri Krishnananda Swami 1966 11 MLJ 551; 80 LW 31 :
Declaration that order of the Wakf Board not binding " suit has to be valued under sec.25 (d) not sec. 28
A.S. M.Abdul Rahim Sahib v.Madras state Walf board by its secretary and others 1965 1 MLJ 278 ; 77 LW 351 ; ILR 1965 1 MAD 308;
A.M. Abdul Kader and others v. U.S.M. Rohammed Ibrahim and others 87 LW 835;
Claim of trusteeship of five different temples-suit can be valued under sec.28 on the basis of single subject matter. Bawaji Chokkappa Mudaliar v.Bewa Chokkappa Mudali 81 LW 13 (S.N.)
Value exceeds Rs. 15,000/- eventhough 1/5th value is less than Rs. 5,000/- suit lies only in the subcourt. Mohboob Bivi Ammal v.AM.M.Abdul Hameed and others 1958: (II ) MLJ 225 ˜ 71 LW 447 : 1958 MWN 661;
G.O.Ms.No. 1574 Home dt. 12.6.1972 . Religious Trust to recover possession " court fee payable is Rs. 15/-
G.O.Ms.No. 1742 dt. 9.7.1969 " Rs. 15/- Court fee for Wakf properties see also Ponnusamy and others v. T.N. State wakfBoard 1981 1 MLJ 252;
Removal of several trustees on the same ground " one relief " cannot be valued separately and single payment of court fee will suffice " AIR 1924 MAD 611;
Prayer for removal of a trustee, for appointment new trustee, framing of a scheme and for direction to deposit of certain amount " suit comes under S-92 CPC " S.47 applies " 47 MLJ 656;
Misappropriation of trust money " scheme suit " AIR 1925 MAD 722.
29. Suits for possession under the Specifice Relief Act, 1877 "
In a suit for possession of immovable property under section 9 of the specific relief act, 1877 (Central Act I of 1877) fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher.
30. Suits for possession not otherwise provided for "
In a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher.
Definition of market value
D.Pattammal v.K. Kalyanasundram - 1988 11 LW 161
Life interest of plaintiff in a portion of building "suit for recovery of possession which is in the unlawful occupation of defendant " plea of life interest claim alone to be value " rejected.
D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundram (Ibid)
Suit for possession by licensee
Nidukonda Rudrammal and another v. Ghandu Ula Srisailam and another AIR 1954 MAD 200 : 1953 11 MLJ 403
Kamakshi Iyer v.Namperumal " AIR 1939 Mad. 506 : 1939 1 MLJ 531 ; 49 LW 481 : 1939 MWN 303 : 185 IC 459 (DB)
Lease against prior lessee
Narayanaswami Pillai v. Ramasamy Pillai 1951 1 MLJ (NRC) 21.
Suit for possession-by Manager of Malabar tarward falls under this section Kandunni Nair v. Ittunni Raman Nair _ AIR 1930 Mad 597 : 58 MLJ 497 : 31 LW 826 : 1930 MWN 291 : 1 LR 53 Mad 540 : 127 IC 128 (DB)
Suit for declaration that sale of undivided ancentral property in favour of defendant is not binding "and possession "falls under this section.
Sellammal v. Jothimani Nadar and Others AIR 1936 Mad 411 : 70 MLJ 398 : 1936 MWN 148 : 16 IC 697
Alienation by guardian suit for possession without a prayer for cancellation proper and C.F for possession-adequate;
C. Ramaswami and others v. Kunjammal and other AIR 1950 Mad. 832 : 1950 1 MLJ 408 : 1950 MWN 404;
Private purchaser's suit for possession against obstructers after the dismissal of his application under 021 Rule 97 of CPC
Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib v. Krishna Rao and other " AIR 1949 Mad. 545 : 1948 11 MLJ 480 : 61 LW 759 : 1948 MWN 770;
Suit for possession and other incidental reliefs "valuation at 30 times the kist as ryotwari land permissible
Jugaraj and others v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. 81 LW 502;
31 Suits relating to easement-
In a suit relating to an easement, whether by the dominant or the servient owner, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, which amount shall in no case be less than rupees three hundred.
Provided that, where compensation is claimed besides other relief relating to such easement, fee shall be paid on the amount claimed as compensation in addition to the fee payable on such other relief.
Declaration suit that defendant has no easement and injunction valuation is under Sec. 7 (iv) (e) old Act, now Sec.31
Pappu Kannu Anni v. Thoppia Mudaliar and another " AIR 1952 Mad 41 : 1952 11 MLJ 108 : 65 LW 136;
Raja K.J.V. Naidu Petitioner " 1946 1 MLJ 61.
In re Venkata Krishna Paltar " AIR 1927 Mad. 348 : 52 MLJ 121 : 25 LW 158 : 36 MCT 18 : 100 IC 263.
Sri Raja Venkataranga Rao Bahadur v. Sir Raja Jadakamella Seetharamachandra Rao " 1940 11 MLJ 655 : 1 LR 1941 Mad. 157.
H.R. Patel v. C.G. Venkatakrishna and another " AIR 1955 Mys. 65 (FB) Rayappan Kutti Nambiar v. Kalliath Chathatnut Kuth " AIR 1924 Mad. 621 : 46 MLJ 377 : 19 LW 668 : 34 MLT 271 : 79 IC 343 (DB)
32. Pre-emption suits-
In a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption, fee shall be computed on the amount of the consideration for the sale which the pre-emptor seeks to avoid or on the market value, whichever is less.
Determination of market value not under Sec. 7 but market value at the time of institution of property.
Narayan Nair and other v. A.P.M. Cheria Kathiri Kutti " 34 MLJ 397 : 45 IC 89
Mohamed Banu Begam v. Mst. Sultani and another " CAIR 1947 All. 107 ; ILR 1948 All.339;
Janasarchand v. Ramlal and another " AIR 1959 Punj. 254.
33. Suits relating to mortgages "
(1) In a suit to recover the money due on a mortgage, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
Explanation- It is immaterial that sale of the mortgaged property is not preyed for.
(2) Where, in such a suit the holder of a prior mortgage or charge is impleaded and he prays in his written statement that the amount due on his mortgage or charge be determined and that the decree contain a director for the payment of such amount to him, fee shall be payable on the written statement computed on the amount claimed.
Provided that, where the holder of the mortgage or charge has paid a fee in any other proceeding on the claim to which his written statement relates, credit shall be given for the fee paid by him in such other proceeding.
(3) Where, in such a suit, the mortgaged property is sold and the holder of a prior or subsequent mortgage or charge applies for payment to him, out of the sale proceeds, of the amount due on his mortgage or charge shall pay on his application a fee computed on the amount claimed by him.
Provided that, where such holder of the mortgage or charge is a party to the suit in which the sale was held and a has paid fee on the written statement filed by him in the suit, no fee shall be payable by him on the application for payment out of the sale proceeds;
Provided further, that, where the holder of the mortgage or charge, not being a party to the suit in which the sale is held, has paid a fee in any other proceeding on the claim to which his application relates, credit shall be given for the fee paid by him in such other proceeding.
(4) In a suit by a co-mortgagee for the benefit of himself and the other co-mortgagees, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed on the entire mortgage.
Provided that, where a co-mortgagee impleaded as defendant in such suit claims on the entire mortgage a larger sum than is claimed in the plaint, the difference between the fee computed on the entire sum claimed in such defendant's written statement and fee computed on the entire sum claimed in the plaint shall be payable on the written statement.
Explanation " Nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as affecting the law of limitation.
(5) (a) In a suit by a sub-mortgagee to recover the amount claimed on the sub-mortgage by sale of the mortgagee's interest in the mortgaged property, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed under the sub-mortgage.
(b) In a suit by a sub-mortgagee, if the prayer is for the sale of the property mortgaged to the original mortgagee and the original mortgagor is also imp leaded as a defendant, fee shall be computed on the entire amount claimed on the original mortgage which is sub-mortgaged to him.
(6) Where the holder of a prior or subsequent mortgage or charge is imp leaded in a suit by a co-mortgagee to which Sub-section (4) applies, or in a suit by a sub-mortgagee to which Sub-section (5) applies, the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to a written statement or an application filed by such holder of mortgage or charge.
(7) Where the original mortgagee who is imp leaded in a suit to which the provisions of Sub-section (5) (b) apply claims on the mortgage sub-mortgaged by him a larger amount than is claimed in the plaint, the provisions of Sub-section (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the written statement of such mortgagor.
(8) In a suit against a mortgagee, for redemption of mortgage fee shall be computed on the mount due on the mortgage as stated in the plaint or on one-fourth of the principal amount secured under the mortgage, whichever is higher;
Provided that, where the amount due on the mortgage is found to be more than the amount on which fee has been paid by the plaintiff, no decree shall be passed until the deficit fee is paid.
Provided further that, in the case of a usufructuary or anomalous mortgage, if the plaintiff prays for redemption as well as for account of surplus profit, fee shall be levied separately on the relief for accounts as in a suit for accounts.
(9) In a suit by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage or where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed in the plaint by way of principal and interest.
Prior Mortgage or charge holder made as party and in the written statement he seeks determination of his amount "regarding his mortgage and claim- and there is direction of payment- he has to pay court fee for that amount.
Ajad Bai v. T. Ramanujachari and another " 1961 1 MLJ 352;
Sub-mortgage impleading original mortgagor " court fee payable on original mortgage amount.
A.L.AR.R.M.Vellayam Chettair v. Mahalinga Pathan and other " AIR 1938 Mad 30 : 1938 1 MLJ 171 : 1937 MWN 1048 : 173 IC 781.
Payment out of sale proceeds by prior or subsequent mortgage " Court fees to be paid
C.V.C.J.V. Venkatachalam Chettair v. Umayal Wearing Establishment and another " 1966 1 MLJ 211;
Co-mortgage suing to recover his individual share-showing other mortgagees as defendants- Court fee payable on the whole mortgage amount.
Peer Ammal v. Nalluswami " AIR 1937 Mad 922 : 1937 11 MLJ 666: 1937 MWN 946 : 176 IC 995;
Kailasa Aiyar v. Sundaram Pattar _ AIR 1942 Mad. 205 : 1941 11 MLJ 986 : 54 LW 679 : ILR (1942) Mad. 438 : 201 Ic 103 (DB)
Sethu Banisiram v. Naga Ayyar " AIR 1930 Mad. 985: 59 MLJ 928 : 32 LW901 : 129 IC 45
Suit for redemption and recovery of surplus profits from the mortgagee-Court fee payable on the mortgage amount only
Grandhi Pothanna v. Simhadri Satyananda Charyulu " AIR 1931 MAD . 479 : 60 MLJ 698 : 33 LW 785 : 132 IC 317;
Radhakrishna Chetty and another v. Miss. Jekla Schomberg " AIR 1941 Mad 115 : 1940 11 MLJ 867 : 1940 MWN 1153;
Devadoss (Minor) and other v. Maniam Sadasiva Reddiar and others " AIR 1947 Mad 211 : 1947 1 MLJ 333 : 60 LW 290 : 1947 MWN 367 : 1 LR 1948 Mad 103;
Antony Salvador Dias v. A. Sivaramma Rao " 1947 1 MLJ 231 : 60 LW 229 : 1947 MWN 202;
Adam Ibrahim Sait v. K. Simratmal and another " AIR 1970 Mad 107 : 1969 MLJ 151 : 82 LW 129 (DB)
Muthu Naicken v. Mariappa Pillai and another " 1952 II MLJ 172 : 64 LW 765 : 1951 MWN 634;
S.R.M. Ramanujam Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai and other " AIR 1946 Mad 181 : 1945 II MLJ 582: 59 LW 64 : 1946 MWN 45;
34. Suits relating to kanam under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929-
(1) A suit by a landlord for recovery of possession of property transferred by way of kanam or kanam-kuzhi kanam shall be deemed to involve the reliefs of redemption and ejectment, and fee shall be levied in respect of each of the reliefs, that is to say, on the kanartham in respect of the relief of redemption and one year's michavaram or rent in respect of the relief of ejectment.
(2) If in any such suit, arrears of michavaram or rent or damages or both are also sought to be recovered, fee shall be levied also on the amount of such arrears or damages or both;
Provided that, where the plaintiff seeks to set off the kanartham and the value of the improvements due by him to the defendant against arrears of michavaram or rent due to him, fee shall be levied only on the balance claimed; and if the amount ascertained to be due to him exceeds the amount as estimated by the plaintiff, no decree shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends.
Sub-Section added by Sec. 4 of and Second Schedule to Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965. [(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sun-section (1) and (2), in respect of the transferred territory, in a suit for ejectment of a kanam holder or a tenant who has a right to permanent occupancy, or is enjoying under perpetual lease or under a lease for a term, exceeding 25 years, fee shall be computed according to the market value of the subject matter.]
Suit for redemption of a Malabar Kanam " can be valued under Sec. 7 (ix) of old Act - even though there is a prayer for taking of accounts and payment of arrears of rent. No Additional Court fee payable on arrears.
Pudiyatuth Parvathi v. Neelioth Makkam Amma (died) and others _ 1951 1 MLJ 497 (FB)
35. Suits for accounts _
(1) In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint.
(2) Where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained, is paid . If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends.
(3) Where in any such suit it is found that any amount is payable to the defendant, no decree shall be passed in his favour until he pays the fee due on the amount.
Suit for accounts "payment of Court Fee See 1997 TLNJ 173
Suit for accounts- nature of accountability to be specified in plaint Chidrie Krishtappa v. Siddameethi Yamanappa " 13 IC 159 (DB)
Kadar Rowther v. Venkatachalapathy Chetty " 14 IC 573
Krishnaswami Aiyengar v. Pooranna Nadar " AIR 1961 Mad. 990 : 28 IC 955;
Ramalinga Chetty v. Subbaiah Chetty ILR 20 Mad. 394 (DB)
Konduru Runga v. Subbaish Chetty ILR 29 Mad 394 (DB)
Surya Narayana v. Rejah of Vizianagaram " AIR 1932 Mad 565 : 35 LW 358 : 137 IC 871;
Mohamed Hussai v. Muhammed Mulumiar " AIR1936 Mad 525 : 163 IC 822;
Madhava Sarma v. Seshagiriryadu " AIR 1937 Mad 235 : 70 MLJ 292 : 43 LW 300 : 1936 MWN 118 : 160 IC 935;
Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay v. Hasham Ismal Hamsa " AIR 1972 Bom 350;
Administration suit is not a mere account suit. See Sec. 39
Syed Devan Khajee Moideen Saheb v. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib " AIR 1942 Mad. 247 : 1941 II MLJ 962 : 54 LW 663 : 1942 MWN 1056 : ILR 1942 Mad 455 : 201 IC 261.
Suit for account-temple trustee against previous trustee on the allegation of mismanagement and for account and recovery of amounts- suits is one of account.
Sri Soundararaja Peumal Devasthanam Nagapattinam v. S.R.M. Soundaraja Pillai & Others " AIR 1947 Mad 360 : 1947 1 MLJ 148 : 60 LW 143 : 1947 MWN 175.
Suit by agent against principal for settlement of accounts "suit is for accounts. A.V. George and Co. v. Peter Kuruvilla " AIR 1957 TC 264.
Adam Ibrahim Sait v. Simrut Mal and another " AIR 1970 Mad 107 : 1969 1 MLJ 151 : 82 LW 120 (DB)
Suit for accounts "plaintiffs qualification must be adequate and reasonable. A.K.A.Ct. V.C.T. Meenakshisundaram Chettair v. A.K.A.CT.V.C.T. Venkatachalam Chettair " AIR 1979 SC 989 : 1980 (1) SCC 616 : 1979 3 SCR 385 : 1979 2 SCJ 141 : 1979 II MLJ (SC) 19.
Mrs. Ponnammal and others v. Kanakavalli Srinivasan and other " 1988 II LW 447 " Suit for partition can only seek for accounts and not for profits.
Chandra Bogi and another v. Gudappa Bhandari " AIR 1953 Mad 846 : 1953 I MLJ 662 : 66 LW 348;
Kaliyala Perava Dharmulu v. Kaliyala Perava Khannulu (minor) by guardian " 1949 II MLJ 402 : 1949 MWN 732 : 46 IC 165;
Baljis Bivi Ammal v. Hathiya Bivi Ammal " AIR 1933 Mad 343;
Ramasamy Chetty v. Gopala Chettiar and others " AIR 1936 Mad 562 : 1936 MWN 401 : 165 IC 412;
Fraizullah Kham v. Manuladad Khan " AIR 1929 PC 147 : 56 IA 232 : ILR 10 Lah 737 : 117 Ic 493 (PC)
In re Dhanukodi Naicker and others " AIR 1938 Mad 435 (FB) : 1938 1 MLJ 628 : 47 LW 488 : 1938 MWN 373 : ILR 1938 Mad 598 : 175 IC 470.
Suit for accounts " compromise decree-money deposited " for withdrawal " No ad valorem court fee " unless party seeks a decree for execution on ascertainment of the actual amount payable.
Nagalinga Nadar v. Amirtha Pandian " 1955 1 MLJ (NRC) 53.
36. Suits for dissolution of partnership-
(1) In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff.
(2) If the value of the plaintiff's share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the values as estimated in the plaint, no decree or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the plaintiff's share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the feet that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid.
(3) No final decree shall be passed, no money shall be paid and no allotment of property shall be made favour of a defendant in any such suit as, for or on account of, his share of the assets of the partnership, until the fee computed on the amount or value of his share of the assets of the partnership is paid.
Suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts- dealt as suit for accounts in the old Act- Manikyala Rao v. Pyddayya AIR 1943 Mad 639 : 1943 II MLJ 130 : 56 LW 391 : 1943 MWN 470 : 210 IC 65 (DB)
Suit for accounts of dissolved partnership "
Uppala Chinna Venkata Ramanayya v. Uppala Peda Venkataramayya " 1959 I MLJ 224 : 72 LW 172 : ILR 1957 Mad 707;
Claim for additional Court fee in a suit for dissolved partnership for accounts " Court cannot initiate coervice process but can dismiss it.
T.E.K. Mohamed Amirudeen v T.E. Mohammed Ibrahim and other " AIR 1957 Mad 667 : 70 LW 886;
Test for proper valuation " reality and not accuracy is the test.
S. Parameswaran v. S. Sarveswaran and others " AIR 1960 Mad 260 : 1960 1 MLJ 468;
P. Ramaswamy Gounder v. Ambujam and others " 99 LW 711;
37. Partition suits.-
(1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share.
(2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates:
When the plaint is presented to
(3) Where, in a suit falling under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), a defendant claims partition and separate possession of his share of the property, fee shall be payable on his written statement computed on half the market value of his share of at half the rates specified in Sub-section (2), according as such defendant has been excluded from possession or is in joint possession.
(4) Where, in a suit falling under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the plaintiff or the defendant seeks cancellation of decree or other documents of the nature specified in Section 40, separate fee shall be payable on the relief of cancellation in the manner specified in that Section.
Difference of Sec. 7 (iv) and Sec. 7 (v) or Schedule II Art " 178 of old Act Ramaswami Iyengar v. Rangachariar " AIR 1940 Mad 113 : 1940 I MLJ 32 : 52 LW 11 : ILR 1940 Mad 259 : 1940 MWN 126 : 186 IC 494 (FB)
Court fee to be considered on the light of the allegations in the plaint and not on the pleas of written statement.
Neelavathi and others v. N. Natarajan and others " AIR 1980 SC 691 : 1980 II MLJ (SC) 21 : 1980 II SCC 247 : 1980 I SCJ 539 : 1980 II SCR 307;
Lakshmiammal v. Madhava Krishnan and others " AIR 1978 SC 1607 : 1978 (4) SCC 15 : 1979 (1) SCR 68;
Varadarajulu Reddiar v. Venkatakrishna Redddiar " 1958 1 MLJ 199 : 71 LW 249
Ramiah Thevar v. Shanmughavel Thevar and others " 1979 1 MLJ 142 Kamala Bai v, Baby Ammal and another 1973 TLNJ 152.
Court fee " determination of " Government with plaint " alone relevant " 1996 TLNJ 490;
Suit for partition alleging joint possession " fixed court fee payable.
R.P. Gill v. Lingamallu Varadhavayya " SIR 1920 Mad 585 : 38 MLJ 92 : ILR 43 Mad 396 : 55 IC 517 (DB)
Kurshit Kathimby v. Hyder Khan " AIR 1924 Mad 207: 1923 MWN 564 : 70 IC 321 " Plaintiff not a member of the family this clause does not apply.
Prathipati Suryanarayana v. Prathipati Seshayya " AIR 1926 Mad 122 : 90 IC 842 " Suit for accounts and profits constructive possession as tenant in common.
Kanduni Nair v. Raman Nair " AIR 1930 Mad 597 : 58 MLJ 497 : 31 LW 826 : 1930 MWN 291 : ILR 53 Mad.
Narayanaswami Iyer v. Kesava Iyer " AIR 1952 Mad 539 : 1952 1 MLJ 11 : 65 LW 413
Suit for declaration that defendant has no right in certain immovable property, for injunction, and further prayer for partition _ If the court hold that plaintiffs were tenants in common-suit falls under Sec. 7 (iv) (c) and not Sec. 7 (iv) (b) of old Act-
Bethasamy Naicker and another v. Nagammal and others AIR 1931 Mad 69 : 33 LW 68 : 129 IC 625;
Framed in allotting properties in a partition deed to set aside " Sec. 7 (iv) (b) or (c) applied.
Sundara Ganapathy Mudali v. Deivasigamani Mudali and another " AIR 1931 Mad 94 : 1930 MWN 358 : 129 IC 824;
Suit for partition defendant can get his share separated by paying stamp no Court fee payable
(pillutla) Venkatasubbamma v. (Gollapudi) Ramanathayya " AIR 1932 722 : 63 MLJ 845 : 36 LW 461 : 1932 MWN 949 : ILR 55 Mad 975 : 139 IC 457 (D.B.)
Suit for partition possession and declaration after setting aside previous alienation " Sec . 7 (iv) (c) applies.
Govindan Nair v. Madhavi " AIR 1932 Mad 491 : 61 MLJ 712 : 35 LW 798 : 1932 MWN 579 : 138 IC 303;
Koraga Gowda and another v. Somappa Gowda and another " AIR 1933 Mad 93 : 36 LW 793 : 1932 MWN 1322 : 140 IC 575;
Nataraja Iyer and other v. Arunachalam and others " AIR 1977 Mad 67 1976 11 MLJ 326 : 89 LW 574;
Suit for partition and possession " suit falls under Schedule II ART 17 B. Manickam Pillai v. Murugesan Pillai " AIR 1933 Mad 431 64 MLJ 576 : 37 LW 748 : 1933 MWN 631 ; 143 Ic 755;
Suit for partition by auction purchaser " Sec. 7 (v) applies
Kamakshi Iyer v. Namperumal " AIR 1939 Mad 506 : 1939 1 MLJ 531 49 LW 481 : 185 IC (DB)
Mohamedan C. Shares ¦¦ Claim for possession of alienated and unalienated properties " Court fee payable under Art. 17-B for unalienated properties and Sec. 7 (v) for alienated properties.
Karai Nachia Bivi v. Alla Pichai and others " AIR 1937 Mad 402 : 1937 1 MLJ 572 : 45 LW 720 : 171 IC 572
Plaintiff out of possession ad valorem court fee payable under Sec.7 (v) Secretary of State v. Subramaniam " AIR 1938 Mad 278 : ILR (1938) Mad 309 : 177 IC 904;
Pudia Kovilagaththekka Kettu Thavazhial Manavedan v. Pudia Kovilagaththekka Kettu Karnavan Manavedan " AIR 1938 Mad 475 : 1938 MWN 131 : 781 IC 905;
Ramaswami Gurukkal v. Siva Subramania Gurukkal " AIR 1943 Mad 655 : 1943 11 MLJ 1062 56 LW 388 : 1943 MWN 452 : 209 IC 448;
Partition between brothers "subsequent suit by minor ignoring previous partition as void " Court fee payable under Sec. 7 (v) of previous partition need not be set aside.
Kuppuswamy Gounder v. Mari Gounder " AIR 1943 Mad. 427 : 1942 1 MLJ 249 : 56 LW 158 : 1953 MWN 175 : 210 IC 278;
Suit for partition and possession by tar ward-seek for cancellation of decree passed against
Karnavan Bhavadasan v. Neelakandan " AIR 1944 Mad 19 : ILR 1944 Mad 430.
Suit for partition by minor for account, partition appointment of interim receiver and costs. In respect of partition and delivery "CF under Sec. 17 B. Transacation with alienees " CF to be paid under Sec. 7 (v). In respect of decree " co- nominee party " CF payable under Sec. 7 (iv).
Ramaswami v. Rangachariar " AIR 1940 MAD 113 : 1940 1 MLJ 32 : 51 LW 11 : 1940 MWN 126 : ILR 1940 MAD 259 : 196 IC (FB)
See also. Akandala Kurup v. Damodara Kurup " AIR 1952 MAD 810 : 1952 11 MLJ 14 : 65 LW 474;
Jurisdiction purpose determined as per value of share
Kolluri Venkatarathnamma v. Maradugula Narasimha Rao and others " 1953 1 MLJ 827;
Suit for partition and possession alienation and decrees impugned " for possession under Sec. 8 (v) and Sec. 7 (iv) (a) for setting aside the decrees.
Bogavilli Parakala Rao v. Bogavilli Subba Rao " AIR 1947 MAD 16 : 1946 1 MLJ 411: 59 LW 330 : 1946 MWN 397 : 229 IC 79;
Suit for partition " assignment by plaintiff to stranger " Stranger added as plaintiff transposing original plaintiff as defendant " for continuation of suit ad valorem court fee to be paid.
Kolliparangendran v. Chandu Appiah and others " AIR 1947 MAD 285 : 1947 1 MLJ 15; 60 LW 1947 MWN 56 ILR 1947 MAD 763;
Suit for partition by alienee " valuation of his share is determined for jurisdiction
Nandula Bhawani Sankaran v.Saladi Mangamma and others " 1948 11 MLJ 412;
Suit for partition " defendant claiming share " suo motu order to pay court fee " improper.
Pydipalli Jogarao v. Pydipalli Venkat Rao " AIR 1949 MAD 471: 1949 1 MLJ 648 : 62 LW 413: 1949 MWN 7 (DB)
Note : Now Sec. 37 (3) Contemplates payment of CF on written statement.
Suit for partition and separate possession of partnership assets after paying the debt. CF to be paid under Sec. 36 (1) and not under sect. 37 (2)
Uppalla Chinna Venkataramanayya v. Uppalla Peda Venkataramayya " 1959 1 MLJ 224 ; 72 LW 172 : ILR 1957 MAD 707;
P.Ramaswami Gounder v. Ambujam and others " 99 LW 711;
Suit by Mohammedan Co. Shares for partition " alleging joint properties though stands in the name of defendant " No claim of adverse possession by defendant " c.F. payable under Sec. 37 (2)
Qhamyunissa Begum v. Fathima Begum and others " 1960 1 MLJ 354;
Suit for partition and account " relief of accounting is incidental " no separate court fee payable.
Minor Kasiviswanathan and another v. S.M.K. Manickkam Chettiar and others " 77 LW 687 ; ILR 1965 II Mad 317;
Suit for partition transferred from Civil Court to High Court under Sec. 24 of CPC " CF to be paid under Sec. 37 (2) (ii) on the scale in force in the High Court Original side.
Panchakshari Ammal and another v. C. Kumaraguru Mudaliar " 76 LW 257 : 1963 MWN 236;
Suit by Muslim Widow for share in husband's estate - administration suit " Sec. 39 and 50 attracted not sec. 37 and 22
Jahara Bivi v. Suleika Bivi and others " 1979 1 MLJ 359 : 92 LW 239: 1979 TLNJ 244;
Suit for partition and separate possession money deposited " payment out court fee payable on the value of the amount.
Muthu and others v. Veerammal and another " AIT 1981 MAD 307 : 1981 1 MLJ 502 : 94 LW 300;
Difference of suit for partition and administration.
Nambikkai Mary v. Prakasa Mary and others " 1959 II MLJ 120
Suit for partition and possession by minors against purchaser- alienation by mother and brother " invalid " CF payable under sec. 37 (1) " Direction by lower appellate court to purchaser to pay C.F. under sec. 37 (4) " improper " Ameena Ammal and others v. Saroja Ammal " 1988 1 LW 688;
Suit for partition by alienee who is in possession " CF paid under 11 Art. 17B sufficient Vetcha Subba Rao and another v. Vetcha Veeraragu " AIR 1951 MAD 656 : 1951 1 MLJ 95 : 1951 MWN 74;
Suit by purchaser for recovery of share from official Receiver. In sale deed Delivery only symbolic possession " fixed court fee sufficient. P.K. Ramalingam v. Ravindra and others " 87 LW 796 see also Vembu Ammal v.Swaminathan and others 1986 1 MLJ 105.
38. Suits for joint possession "
In a suit for joint possession of joint family property owned jointly or in common by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share.
Suits for joint possession " Section applies " Substantive relief and not to consequential relief " (1961) 2 MLJ 481;
39. Administration suits.-
(1) In a suit for the administration of an estate, fee shall be levied on the plaint at the rates specified in section 50.
(2) Where any amount or share or part of the assets of the estate is found due to the plaintiff, and the fee computed on the amount or the market value of such share or part of the assets exceeds the fee paid on the plaint, no payment shall be made and no decree directing payment of money of confirming title to such share or part of the assets shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee computed on the amount or value of the property is paid.
(3) No payment shall be made, no decree directing payment of money or confirming title to any share or part of the assets of the estate shall be passed in favour of a defendant in a suit for administration, until the fee computed on the amount or value of such share or part of such assets is paid by such defendant.
(4) In computing the fee payable by plaintiff or by a defendant under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) , credit shall be given for the fee, if any, paid by such plaintiff or by such defendant in any other proceeding in respect of the claim on the basis of which such amount or share or part of the assets of the estate becomes due to such plaintiff or to such defendant.
Valuation to be done as per the valuation provided under S 50 " (1942) 2 MLJ 587;
Suit for partition and administration " Difference pointed out " (1959) 2 MLJ 120;
Administration suit " Nature of relief " Duty of Court " 73 LW 792;
Administrative suit " preliminary decree passed " Another creditor need not pay court fee " 34 LW 429 ;
A claim for a share in the estate of deceased husband by a Muslim widow is governed by this section " 1979 TLNJ 244;
Suit for administration , partition, rendition of accounts and future mesne profits " S 39 not attracted S 25 (6) applies (1971) 1 MLJ 362 ; 69 LW 116
40. Suits for cancellation of decrees etc. "
(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be "
If the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed;
If a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
(2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of a property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property , fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree whichever is less.
Explanation " A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this Section.
Strangers to the documents need not seek for setting aside the same. " AIR 1952 MAD 552;
Suit for declaration may be treated as part of cancellation " (1939) 2 MLJ 400
In a suit for partition by a minor, he has to set aside the transaction with alienees after paying court fee under S7 (v) of the old Act and in respect of decrees where he was conominee party court fee is payable under S7 (IV) (a) of old act (present S 40 (1), as he impliedly asked for cancellation of the decrees " (1940) 1 MLJ 32;
When the prayer was for declaration alleging that the sale deed executed by him is not binding, he has to seek setting aside of the deed and court fee is payable under S 40 (1) " 68 LW 61;
In a suit by a minor for declaration that the decree obtained against him in a prior suit is invalid on the ground of his minority, the suit was held to be one for the cancellation of the decree. " (1951) 1 MLJ 439;
In a suit for cancellation of a deed of conveyance and possession, relief should be valued in accordance with S7 (IV) (a) of old Act and the market value is as on date of plaint " (1932) 1 MLJ 702 ; 48 LW 277;
A suit by a creditor under S 53 of T.P. Act for declaration that the alienation by the debtor is void, is not a suit for cancellation " (1939) 2 MLJ 400;
In a suit claiming certain properties as belonging to the joint family on the allegation that he was entitled to them by survivorship and that a will left by his coparcener was forgery, there was no need to seek cancellation " 70 MLJ 542;
Decree in a suit for partition of tarward property obtained against karnavan must be cancelled. AIR 1944 MAD 19.
Suit for declaration that a compromise decree passed in a prior suit is not binding " Court fee payable advolorem. " (1944) 2 MLJ 35;
Suit for declaration that a compromise decree passed is not binding without any consequential relief falls under Act 17A (1) " (1956) 1 MLJ 436;- Court fee is not payable on advalorem basis " 69 LW 399 (FB) - (1950) 1 MLJ 436 " (1975) 2 MLJ 304;
Suit for declaration that a gift deed by the plaintiff is not binding on him on the ground that he was of unsound mind " cancellation not necessary " (1955) 1 MLJ 310; (1944) 1 MLJ 497;
Minor made eonominee party to alienation by mother and guardian cancellation is to be prayed (1956) 2 MLJ 411;
Suit for declaration that a decree was not executable by reason of an agreement entered into before the suit " Decree has to be set aside.- (1942) 2 MLJ 658;
Suit for partition alleging that certain releases are void or voidable " must be set-aside " (1960) 2 MLJ 268 ; 1
Suit for cancellation of sale deeds " court fee has to be computed on the market value as on date of plaint " (1970) 2 MLJ 643; 1972 TLNJ 372;
Suit for declaration " Avoiding a final decree in an earlier suit " plaintiff not eonominee party " court fee not payable under S-40: - (1973) 2 MLJ 22;
Suit to set aside judgment of Division Bench " Not same parties " S-40 (1) attracts (1976) 1 MLJ 9
Suit for partition questioning alienation by joint family manager as not binding " Does not come under S-40 " (1976) 2 MLJ 326;
Settlement Deed questioned " Does not come, under S-40 " (1979) 2 MLJ 326;
Settlement Dees questioned " Does not come under S-40 " (1949) 2 MLJ 11;
Order of Rent controller " suit for cancellation " S-40 does not apply " 92 LW 71;
Revenue sale null and void " suit for declaration " Relief of cancellation should be asked for " 92 LW 269:
Suit to set aside documents or cancellation "Tests (1959) 1 MLJ 355;
Suit by minors for declaration and possession of the property on the ground that sale deed by father and mother as guardian was void " Sale must be set aside " (1959)1 MLJ 118;
Suit by two nearest reversioners " abatement in respect of one " others sons suit for their half share " prior dismissal has to be set aside " S-40 applies (1959) 1 MLJ 21;
Purchasers suit for declaration that an equitable mortgage by his vendor was not binding on him " S-40 applications of " (1964) 1 MLJ 152;
Suit for recovery of possession of properties and accounts from mother claiming life estate under earlier partition " cancellation of earlier partition " S-40 applies (1964) 1 MLJ 278;
If in a suit prayer for cancellation is not necessary, but still if made in the plaint, it will be considered a mere surplus age (1960) 2 MLJ 527;
Suit to set aside maintenance decree-suit has to be valued on the amount payable for one whole year " (1958) 2 MLJ 159 " Suit with charge over properties " 92 LW 724 ;
Suit under O 21 R 63 CPC falls under S-40 " (1961) 1 MLJ 156;
Suit for partition after ignoring the sale by the plaintiff's guardian " prayer for setting aside alienation " if voidable must be set aside " 81 LW 338;
Suit for redemption of mortgage and for accounts " though deeds were styled as sale deed, really mortgages-cancellation not necessary " (1969) 1 MLJ 151;
Suit for partition " also for that decrees obtained by creditors against defendants father alone, were not binding " Court fee payable on amount of decree advolorem " S. 40 applies " 88 L.W. 504;
A suit in substance one for setting aside the decree or for consequential relief of injunction S. " applies " AIR 1973 SC 2384
Suit for declaration , partition and possession " Compromise decree " Plaintiff a party " It has to be set aside " S.40 (1) applies " 88 L.W.678;
Suits for declaration, and possession from the alinees alleging that their Vendor had no title " Suit does not come under S. 40 " (1970) 1 MLJ 207
Suit to set aside final decree in partition suit " Grievance against the allotment of the property, mortgaged to him to another person " Suit does not fall under S.40 (1) " (1973) 2 MLJ 331.
Sale under co-operative societies act " suit for recovery of sale consideration paid by the auction purchaser " Setting aside the sale not necessary " S. 40 (1) does not apply " 83 L.W. 793.
Suit for cancellation of a document " Value mentioned in the document alone relevant and not the market value " (1971) 2 MLJ 205 See (1973) 2 MLJ 334 " 1972 TLNJ 312.
Minor suit to set aside alienation by father as shown and nominal " No prayer for setting aside sale necessary " AIR 1962 MAD 396.
Suit to set aside Revenue sale as null and void " Market value as on the date of plaintiff payable " 99 L.W. 412
Minor's suit to declare earlier suit not binding them " S. 40 (1) applies " 79 L.W. 214
Suit for declaration and injunction by a purchaser of a share from second defendant partition among second defendant and two others resulting in preliminary decree cancellation not necessary " S.40 (1) applies " 1972 TLNJ 628.
Setting aside settlement deed by a plaintiff as sham and nominal " Cancellation of the document necessary " (1986) 1 MLJ 462.
Scope of " 1983 TLNJ 274: 72 L.W. 680 " (1941) 2 MLJ 956 7B: - 51 L.W. 73 " 73 L.W. 52 " (1948) 2 MLJ 637; - (1953) 2 MLJ 312.
Sale agreement created fraudulently " Not valid and not binding on plaintiff " suit for declaration " S.40 does not apply " 1995 II L.W. 880.
Compromise decree " Suit to set aside " S.40 does not apply (1995) II L.W. (S.C.) 296.
41. Suit to set aside attachment , etc.,-
(1) In a suit to set aside an attachment by a Civil or Revenue Court of any property , movable or immovable, or of any interest therein or of any interest in revenue, or to set aside an order passed on an application made to set aside the attachment, fee shall be computed on the amount for which the property was attached or on one-fourth of the market value of the property attached, whichever is less.
(2) In a suit to set aside any other summary decision or order of a Civil or Revenue Court, if the subject matter of the Suit has a market value, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of such value, and in other cases, fee shall be payable at the rates specified in Section 50.
Explanation " For the purpose of this section, the Registrar of Co-operative societies shall be deemed to be a civil court.
42. Suits for specific performance "
In a suit for specific performance, whether with or without possession, fee shall be payable-
(a) in the case of a contract of sale, computed on the amount of the consideration ;
(b) in the case of a contract of mortgage, computed on the amount agreed to be secured by the mortgage;
(c ) in the case of a contract of lease, computed on the aggregate amount of the fine or premium, if any, and of the average of the annual rent agreed to be paid;
(d) in the case of a contract of exchange, computed on the amount of the consideration, or as the case may be, on the market value of the property sought to be got in exchange;
(e) in the other cases, where the consideration for the promise sought to be enforced has a market value, computed on such market value, or where such consideration has no market value, at the rates specified is section 50.
Court fee depends upon the nature of claim " (1939) 1 MLJ 268;
A suit by the Vendor to recover purchase money from his vendee is a suit for specific performance " Air 1919 MAD 304;
Suit for specific performance and delivery of possession " Not two different subjects " AIR 1924 MAD 369;
Some properties remain to be conveyed " Suit for specific performance- AIR 1937 MAD 831;
In lieu of mortgage debt, contract to sell property " Suit for specific performance- (1943) 1 MLJ 82:
Suit for specific performance of unperformed part of a contract for sale " Court fee not to be paid on the entire value " AIR 1937 MAD 837;
Exchange of properties " court fee " payable " 57 L.W. 130.
43. Suits between landlord and tenant "
(1) In the following suits between landlord and tenant, namely;-
(a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of lease or for acceptance of patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(b) for enhancement of rent;
Inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965(bb) in respect of the transferred territory, for abatement of rent, where it is not coupled with any other relief;
(c ) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease or for obtaining a patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(d) for recovering occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord;
(e) for establishing or disproving a right of occupancy;
Fee shall be levied, on the amount of rent for the immovable property to which the suit relates, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.
(2) In a suit for recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the termination of a tenancy, fee shall be computed on the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.
Explanation " Rent includes also damages for use and occupation payable by a tenant holding over.
(3) In an appeal from a suit to contest a distraint under Section 95, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, or to contest the right of sale under section 112 of the Act, fee shall be charged on the amount of that arrears for which the distrait has been made or the sale is proposed to be held.
Suit by landlord for commutation of grain rents into money is not a suit for enhancement of rent. AIR 1924 MAD 623;
"Occupancy of land" and "ejected" " meaning of " 31 MAD 14
Relationship of landlord and tenant " once there is determination of tenancy, there is no subsisting relationship " 29 MLJ 572
Mere denial of title will not affect the frame of suit " AIR 1927 MAD 331;
Ejectment suit " Title is not germane " AIR 1915 MAD 654 ; 35 LW 393;
Relief of declaration also " section will not apply " 29 LW 760;
Assignee " Right of " AIR 1937 MAD 91;
Kudiwaran Rights and recovery of possession " Declaration for " suit will not be governed by the section 63 MLJ 759;
Tenancy protected under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act- compensation for superstructure " separate court fee not warranted " 79 LW 213;
Ejectment suit between present and former lessee- Rent does not include government kist " (1948) 1 MLJ 338
Claim by coowner owning fractional share " Suit in ejectment does not lie. (1981) 1 MLJ 312;
Landlord and tenant relationship not proved " ejectment suit cannot be converted into suit for declaration " 94 LW 502
Suit in ejectment " lease of vacant land " tenants super " structure " Landlords right to recover superstructure " court fees " s 43 (2) applies " 1995 TLNJ 58
Suit for recovery of possession " tenant holding over " Tenant questions the right of landlord " claim protection under city tenants protection Act " court fee " Market value of super " structure also necessary " (1994) 2 MLJ 413;
44. Suits for mesne profits .-
(1) In a suit for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits, fee shall in respect of mesne profits be computed, where the amount is stated approximately and sued for, on such amount. If the profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the profits as approximately estimated and sued for no decree shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid.
(2) Where a decree directs an enquiry as to the mesne profits which have accrued on the property, whether prior or subsequent to the institution of the suit, no final decree shall be passed till the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits accrued due till the date of such decree is paid.
(3) Where, for a period subsequent to the date of the decree of final decree, such decree or final decree directs payment of mesne profits at a specified rate, such decree or final decree shall not be executed until the fee computed on the amount claimed in execution has been paid.
Mesne profits- Value 0f " At the first instance court fee to be paid on ad valoram basis " on ascertainment to be valued - Difference to be paid " 76 MLJ 677;
Mesne profits " Decree for future profits " AIR 1967 bSC 155;
Mesne profits "Duty to pay court fee " (1978) 2 MLJ 606;
Mesne profits in partition suits " Not proper " (1988) 2 LW 447 " (1951) 2 MLJ 176;
Mesne profits in restitution proceedings " (1962) 1 MLJ 381;
Jurisdiction " Mesne profits " exceeds courts jurisdiction " not a bar " 32 MLJ 221;
Mesne profits " Approximate value exaggerated in the body of plaint " Claimed lesser in the prayer " Under taken to pay as and when determined " 1973 TLNJ 471;
Mesne profits " Lesser amount granted " Appeal " Court fee payable " 1977 TLNJ 95;
45. Suits under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 "
In a suit under section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (tamil nadu act VIII of 1923), fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property affected by the determination of the boundary or on rupees three hundred, whichever in higher.
46. Suits to alter or cancel entry in a register "
In a suit to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of properties or revenue paying estate, the fee payable shall be fifteen rupees.
Suit by a divided cosharer - Estate " Registering his name " AIR 1927 MAD 568
47. Suits relating to public matters "
In a suit for relief under section 14 of the religious endowments act, 1863 (central act xx of 1863),under section 91 or section 92 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (central act v of 1908), the fee payable shall be fifty rupees.
48. Inter pleader suits. "
(1) In an inter pleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in section 50.
(2) where issues are framed as between the claimants fee shall be payable computed on the amount of the debt or the money or the market value of other property, movable or immovable, which forms the subject matter of the suit. It levying such fee, credit shall be given for the fee paid on the plaint and the balance of the fee shall be paid in equal shares by the claimants who claim the debt or the sum of money or the property adversely to each other.
(3) Value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the amount of the debt, or the sum of money or the market value of other property to which the suit relates.
49. Third party proceedings "
In third party proceedings fee shall be levied on one-half of the value of the contribution or indemnity claimed against a third party or against a co-defendant if a claim is made against him.
Provided that, if the suit against the defendant who has filed the third party notice is dismissed, wholly or in part, he shall be entitled to a refund of the whole or a proportionate part of the fee paid by him.
Explanation " The provisions of this section shall also apply to counter claims made in third party proceedings.
50. Suits not otherwise provided for "
In suits not otherwise provided for, fee shall be payable at the following rates:
Reversionars suit for declaration suit and for appointment of Receiver " Not a consequential relief " old s 17-B1 applies. " AIR 1926 MAD 678;
Suit to set aside summary order " S 41 (2) applies and not S " 50 . " AIR 1960 MAD 147;
Order of collector allowing to a claim petition in income tax proceedings suit to set aside " s 50 applies " (1960) 1 MLJ 137;
Muslim widow's suit to administer the estate of husband " S 50 applies 92 LW 239;
Improper allotment of property mortgaged to the plaintiff " S 50 applies " (1973) 2 MLJ 331;
Suit to restrain from entering, holding meetings and celebrating festival " s 50 applies (1982) 1 MLJ 215;
Order of rent controller " to set aside the order " s- 50 applies " 92 LW 71;
Admission of new members " special officer not competent " suit for declaration " consequential relief " s " 50 does not apply " (1991) 2 MLJ 179;
Minor's suit for declaration and the alienation effected by adoptive mother not valid court fee valued under sec.25 (d) applicability of sec. 25 (d) " 1997 (2) LW 188;
Suit by Muslim widow for administration " Court fee payable " 1979 TLNJ 244;
Purchaser to mortgage decree "delivery could not be taken in view of obstruction suit by purchaser " court fee " 1972 TLNJ 394;
Residuary provision comes into play only if there is no other provision " (1991) II MLJ 178 " (1997) II L.W. 188.
51. Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation "
The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.
Sec. 51 not a charging section " Advalorem court fee has to be paid as prescribed in the section Litigant must be charged in most favourable way " AIR 1932 CAL 346;
The forum and the value of the appeal are determined by the nature and value of the decree " 45 (MAD) 320
Power of court to grant higher compensation with the direction to pay the deficit court fee " 1985 (3 SCC) 737 " 1992 TLNJ 194;
Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable property act. " Appeal Sec. 51 applies " 1974 (2) MLJ 313 " See also AIR 1971 SC 1887 " 1976 (1) MLJ 108 " 1973 TLNJ 121;
52. Appeals "
The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal.
Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the court of first instance or by the court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree.
(1) Whether the appeal is against the refusal of a relief or against the grant of the relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable on the relief in the court of first instance.
(2) Costs shall not be deemed to form part of the subject matter of the appeal except where such costs form themselves the subject matter of the appeal or relief is claimed as regard costs on grounds additional to, or independent of, the relief claimed regarding the main subject matter in the suit.
(3) In claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit, the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject matter of the appeal except where such interest is relinquished.
(4) Where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed for or refused in the court of first instance, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal.
(5) Where the market value of the subject matter of the appeal has to be ascertained for the purpose of computing or determining the fee payable. Such market value shall be ascertained as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
Form of appeal is determined by suit valuation " AIR 1945 MAD 194;
Rejection of the plaint " Appeal " stands on the same footing like any other appeal but if rejection is due to non-payment of deficit court fee, court fee is payable for the difference " 1938 (1) MLJ 662;
Rejection of an application to sue as an indigent person. Court fee is payable only under section 50 read with section 52 " 1958 (I) MLJ 97
Fixed court fee is payable for an appeal under section 4 of partition Act " AIR 1961 CAL 65;
"Except where such interest is relinquished" meaning and scope of " AIR 1982 Kerala 255
Suit against number of defendant Decreed against one and dismissed against others " Appeal " Court fee payable is of the value of the suit. 12 (MAD) 508;
Separate Appeals by different defendants " court fee is to be paid separately " 48 (IC) 424;
Installment decree " Appeal " Prayer " Decree for lumpsum " Advalorem court fee payable " 19 (CAL) 272;
Suit on mortage against a Hindu father and his two sons " Decreed " Appeal by sons claim that their share not liable " court fee payable on their share or on the decree amount whichever is less. " 33 (MAD) 96;
Suit for sale of mortgaged property against mortgagor and puisne mortgage " decree directs that balance of money after paying of plaintiff be paid to the puisne mortgagee " mortgagor " appellant to pay Advalorem court fee. " AIR 1932 LAH 954;
Suit on a mortgage by puisne motgagee " prior mortgagee claims priority " decreed - appeal " court fee payable " AIR 1937 MAD 840;
Redemption decree " Appeal " Court fee payable " 1942 (2) MLJ 785
Suit for recovery of possession by wakf Board, G.O.Ms. 1742 Home dt. 9.6.69 prescribes fixed court fee for Board " Appeal by defendant " concession not available " 1980 TLNJ 341;
Appeal by defendant against a final decree court fee payable on the amount of the decree " 1938 (2) MLJ 557;
Valuation of the suit cannot be changed in the appeal except when the portion of the relief is abandoned. " 1938 (2) MLJ 557;
Combined Appeal preferred against preliminary and final decree court fee is paid on the value of subject matter of suit " 14 LW 389
Owelty amount determined infinal decree in partition suit . Court fee payable on the ascertained amount by defendant . - 1981 TLNJ 102;
Relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed in the Trial court " court fee payable " (1997) 1 L.W. 76.
Valuation of Suits
53. Suits not otherwise provided for .-
In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.
(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value, or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value, such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
The plaintiff cannot be allowed to under value the suit and evade the payment of proper court fee for the purpose of jurisdiction by omitting to ask for substantive relief " (1959) 1 MLJ 355;
Notional value of the property cannot replace its real value for purpose of jurisdiction " 25 MLJ 298:
When a subject matter is incapable of valuation, plaintiff's value shall be accepted. It it is other wise market value will be the value for jurisdiction " 52 LW 381;
Plaintiff bound to assess the relief that he claims on the basis of the value of the benefit that he may seek for purposes of jurisdiction " 69 MLJ 202;
Value of relief sought " determines the value of jurisdiction " AIR 1958 SC 245;
Pecuniary jurisdiction to be determined only on the basis of market value (see s.12 of city civil courts act) " (1958) 2 MLJ 225;
Suit for specific performance " agreement " partition Court fee payable " 1977 (II) LW 123.
54. Procedure where objection is taken on appeal or revision that a suit or appeal was not properly valued for jurisdictional purposes.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 99 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under " valuation of a suit or appeal, a court of first instance or lower appellate court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate court, unless-
(a) the objection was taken in the court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in lower appellate court in the memorandum of appeal to that court, or
(b) the appellate court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over-valued or under valued and that the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.
(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in clause (a) on sub-section (1) , but the appellate court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in clause (b) of that sub-section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds or appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the court of first instance or lower appellate court.
(3) If the objection was taken in that manner and the appellate court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appeal under the rules applicable to the court with respect to the hearing of appeals; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it shall direct its order to a court competent to entertain the suit or appeal.
(4) The provisions of this section with respect to an appellate court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to a court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the coder of civil procedure , 1908 (Central act v of 1908), or other enactment for the time being in force.
Objection as to jurisdiction , if not raised, must be deemed to have been waived. AIR 1966 SC 634; (1974) 2 MLJ 431; - 88 LW 519; (1994) 2 MLJ 309 ; (1946) 2 MLJ 282; - (1953) 1 MLJ 424;
Probates, Letters of Administration and Certificates of Administration
55. Application for probate or letters of administration "
(1) Every application for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set for in Part-1 of Schedule III.
(2) On receipt of such application, the court shall send a copy thereof and of the valuation to the collector of the district in which the estate is situated or if the estate is situated in more than one district to the Collector of the district in which the most valuable portion of the immovable property included in the estate is situated.
This section is similar to Section 19H (1) of the old Act.
56. Levy of fees "
(1) The fee chargeable for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall comprise " a fee at the rate or rates prescribed in Article 6 of Schedule I, computed
(a) where the application is made within one year of the date of death of the deceased , on the market value of the estate on such date, or
(b) where the application is made after the expiry of one year from such date, on the market value of the estate, on the date of the application.
Provided that property held in trust not beneficially or with general power to confer a beneficial interest shall not be liable to any fee under this Chapter.
Explanation " Any member of a joint Hindu Family governed by the mitakshara Law who applies for probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased member of the joint family shall pay a fee on the value of the share in the joint property which the deceased would have received if a partition of the property had been made immediately before his death.
(2) for the purpose of the computation of fee "
(a) the value of the items mentioned in Annexure " B to part I of Schedule III shall be deducted from the value of the estate;
Provided that, when an application is made for probate or letters of administration is in respect of part only of an estate, no debt, no expenses connected with any funeral rites or ceremonies and no mortgage encumbrance on any part of estate, other than that in respect of which the application is made shall be deducted.
Provided further that when, after the grant of a certificate under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (central) Act XXXIX of 1925) or under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of any property included in an estate, a grant of probate or letters of administration is made in respect of the same estate, the fee payable in respect of the latter grant shall be reduced by the amount of the fee paid, in respect of the former grant,
(b) the power of appointment which the deceased had over a property or which was created under a will shall be taken into account, the value being taken to be the value of the property forming the subject-matter of the power.
Value given by the appellant " has to be accepted " 25 MAD 515;
Value of the estate includes the amounts already collected by the executor before filing of application " AIR 1956 MAD 277;
Undivided share of a Hindu Copparcener " court fee has to be calculated on the value of the share " 49 C 1064;
Letters of administration granted for entire assets " Court fee payable only for assets in India (1979) 1 and WR 97
57. Grant of probate "
The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of the reference to the Collector under Section 55, Sub-section (5), but the court shall make no grant of probate or letters of administration until it is satisfied that a fee not less than that prescribed by this Act has been paid on the basis of the net value of the estate as furnished in the valuation accompanying the application, in the amended, valuation filed under Section 59, sub-section (3)
Provided that the court may grant probate or letters of administration notwithstanding that the prescribed fee has not been paid to the Administrator General in his official capacity on his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that the said fee will be paid within such time a may be fixed by the court.
Actual grant of probate or letters of Administration only after the payment of requisite duty " AIR 1938 MAD 486;
Paper proceedings are exempt, as the government has a charge upon the subject matter of grant pursuant to O 33 R 10 CPC " (1937) 2 MLJ 899;
58. Relief in cases several grants "
(1) Whenever a grant of probate or letters of administration has been made in respect of the whole of the property belonging to an estate, and the full fee payable under this Act in respect of the application for such grant has been paid thereon, no fee shall be payable when a like grant is made in respect of the whole or any part, of the same property belonging to the same estate.
(2) Whenever such grant has been made in respect of any property forming part of an estate, the amount of fee actually paid under this Act in respect thereof shall be deducted when a like grant is made in respect of the property belonging to the same estate identical with or including the property to which the former grant relates.
Revocation of Letters of Administration " 16 Suth W.R. 253;
Death of executor " AIR 16 CAL 290 ;
Death of beneficiary and fresh devolution of estate " fee payable " AIR 1954 MAD 898;
59. Inquiry by the Collector "
(1) The Collector to whom a copy of the application of the valuation has been sent under section 55, sub-section (2), shall examine the same and may make or cause to be made by any officer subordinate to him, such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit, as to the correctness of the valuation or where a part only of the property is situated in his district, of the valuation of that part, may require the collector of any other district in which any part of the property is situated to furnish him with the correct valuation thereof.
(2) Any collector required under sub-section (1) to furnish the correct valuation of any property shall comply with the requisition after making or causing to be made by any officer subordinate to him such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit.
(3) If the collector is of opinion that the applicant has under "estimated the value of the property of the deceased, he may, if he thinks fit, require the attendance of the applicant, either in person or by his agent, and take evidence and inquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit, and if he is still of opinion that the value of the property has been under-estimated, may required the applicant to amend the valuation and, if the application for probate or letters of administration is pending in court, to file a copy of the amended valuation in such court.
(4) If, in any such case, the probate or letters of administration has or have been granted and the applicant amends the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector and the Collector finds that a less fee has been paid that was payable according to the true value of the estate, he shall proceed under section 61, sub-section (4), but if a higher fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, the excess fee shall be refunded to the applicant.
(5) If the applicant does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, the Collector, may move the court before which the application for probate or letters of administration was made to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property.
Provided that no such motion shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the exhibition of the inventory required by section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Central Act XXXIX of 1925).
60. Application to court and powers of court "
(1) The court shall, when moved by the collector under section 59 sub-section (5), hold or cause to be held by any court or officer subordinate to it an inquiry as to the true value at which the estate of the deceased should have been estimated. The collector shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry.
(2) For the purpose of any such inquiry, the court or the subordinate court or the officer authorized by the court to hold the inquiry may examine the applicant on oath either in person or by commission, and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the estate, and where the inquiry has been entrusted to a subordinate court or officer, such court or officer shall return to the court the evidence taken and report the result of the inquiry and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceedings.
(3) The court on the completion of the inquiry or on receipt of the report referred to in sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall record a finding as to the true value at which the estate should have been estimated and such finding shall be final.
(4) the court may make such order in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), as to the cost of the inquiry as it thinks fit.
A suitor cannot be allowed to under value and then evade payment of court fee with a view to deprive the state of revenue " 52 CAL 871;
Valuation " Civil " Court's decision is final " AIR 1925 CAL 357
61. Provision for cases where too low a fee has been paid.-
(1) Where too low a fee has been paid on any probate or letters of administration in consequence of any mistake, or of its not being known at the time that some particular part of the estate belonged to the deceased, if any executor or administrator, acting under such probate or letters applies to the collector in the form of set forth in part II of schedule III and pays within six months after the discovery of the mistake or of any effects not known at the time to have belonged to the deceased, what is wanting to make up the fee which ought to have been paid at first on such probate or letters, the collector shall, if satisfied that a low fee was paid in the first instance in consequence of a mistake and without any intention of fraud or to delay the payment of the proper fee, cause the probate or letters to be duly stamped.
(2) If, in a case falling under sub-section (1) , the executor or administrator does not, within the six months referred to in that sub-section , pay the deficit fee, he shall forfeit a sum equal to five times the deficit fee.
(3) If, on application being made under sub-section (1), the collector is not satisfied that the application was made within six months of the discovery of the mistake or of further effects not included in the original valuation, or that the payment of a low fee in the first instance was not due to a bona fide mistake, he shall cause the probate or letters to be duly stamped on payment of the deficit fee, together with a penalty not exceeding five times such fee.
(4) If, after the grant of probate or letters of administration of an estate, it is found by the Collector as a result of proceedings under Section 59 or section 60 or otherwise, that less fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, he shall cause the probate or letter of to be properly stamped on payment of deficit fee, and if he is satisfied that the original undervaluation was not bonafide, he shall levy in addition a penalty not exceeding five times the deficit fee.
(5) The Board of Revenue may remit the whole or any part of the amount forfeited under sub-section (2) or of any penalty under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4).
"Mistake" includes mistake of law " 1938 LAH 947
62. Administrator to give proper security before letters stamped "
In case of letters of administration on which too low a fee has been paid at first, the collector shall not cause the same to be duly stamped in the manner afore said until the administrator has given such security to the court by which the letters of administration have been granted as ought by law to have been given on the granting thereof in case the full value of the estate of the deceased had been then ascertained.
63. Relief when too high a fee has been paid "
(1) If, at any time after the grant of the probate or letters of administration of an estate, it is discovered that a higher fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, the executor or administrator, as the case may be, may apply for a refund to the collector to whom a copy of the valuation of the estate was sent under section 55, sub-section (2). The application shall be accompanied by an amended valuation in the form set forth in Part II of scheduled III together with the probate or letters of administration upon which a refund is sought.
(2) If the collector is satisfied that the amended valuation is correct, he shall "
(i) endorse a certificate on the stamped probate or letters of administration to the effect that so much of the fee represented by the stamp or stamps used has been refunded, and
(ii) refund the difference between the originally paid and that which should have been paid;
Provided that, no refund shall be granted under this section unless the application for refund is made within three years of the date of the grant of the probate or letters of administration, or within such further period as the collector may allow.
If, by reason of any legal proceedings, the debts, due from the deceased have not been ascertained and paid, or his effects have not been recovered and made available and in consequence thereof, the executor or administrator is prevented from claiming the return of such difference within the period of three years, the collector may allow such further time for making the claim as may appear to him to be reasonable under the circumstances.
If the collector does not grant a refund, the executor or administrator, as the case may be, may apply to the Board to Revenue for an order of refund. An application for such refund should be accompanied by an amended valuation in the form set forth in part II of schedule III.
64. Recovery of penalties, etc.-
Any excess fee found to be payable by an applicant for probate or letters of administration or by an executor or administrator, or any costs under section 60, sub-section (4) , or any penalty or forfeiture payable by any such executor or administrator may, on the certificate of the Board of Revenue, be recovered from the executor or administrator as if it were an arrears of land revenue.
S-64; Recovery of deficit court fee " power " (1953) 2 MLJ 719
65. Powers of Board of Revenue "
The powers and duties of the collector under this chapter shall be subject to the control of the board of revenue.
Board of revenue superseded by Tamil Nadu act 36 of 1980 " Section 10.
Refunds and Remissions
66. Refund in cases of delay in presentation of plaint, etc.-
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its representation, or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is deficient and the deficiency is not made good within the time allowed by law or granted by the court, or the delay in payment of the deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or the memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the court shall direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant, of the fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected.
(2) Where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation, one-half of the fee shall be refunded.
Dismissal of application for condone delay in filing appeal - Half the court fee to be refunded " (1992) 2 LW 28;
Refund can be ordered under the present Act only for the cases covered by the sections " court has no inherent power to do so " (1980) 2 MLJ 545 (FB)
When appellants did not want to prosecute the appeal, they are entitled to refund of court fee " 96 LW 454;
67. Refund in cases of remand "
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower court, the court making the order or remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court, and if the remand is in Letters Patent Appeal, also on the memorandum of second appeal and memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court.
(2) Where an appeal is remanded in second appeal or Letters Patent Appeal for a fresh decision by the lower appellate court, the High Court remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount fee paid on the memorandum of Second Appeal if the remand is in second appeal, and of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal and the memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal if the remand is in Letters Patent Appeal if the remand is in Letters Patent Appeal.
Provided that, no refund shall be ordered if the remand was caused by the fault of the party who would otherwise be entitled to a refund;
Provided further that, if the order of remand does not cover the whole of the subject-matter of the suit, the refund shall not extend to more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on that part of the subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded.
Refund of court fee on remand - Essential conditions " AIR 1965 AP 395;
Refund certificate was lost " Duplicate can be issued " (1943) 2 MLJ 377;
Remand " when entitled to refund of court fee " AIT 1960 RAJ 170;
68. Refund where court reverses or modifies former decision on ground of mistake "
Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the rehearing the court reverses or modifies its former decision on that ground, it shall direct the refund to the applicant of so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee payable on any other application to such court under Article 11 (g) and (u) of Schedule II.
69. Refund on settlement before hearing "
Whenever any suit is dismissed as settled out of court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, half the amount of all fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid.
Explanation " The expression merits of the claim' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 12.
S. 69 does not apply to appeal " AIR 1934 MAD 566.
"Recorded" " meaning of " AIR MAD 180;
Deletion of alternative claim " Not a ground for refund " AIR 1955 SC 600;
Settled out of court " earlier dismissal for default or exparte decree not relevant " Refund " entitled to " (1982) 1 MLJ 126;
Section does not apply in a case where originally the suit was filed in the High Court and was subsequently transferred to the city civil court " (1959) 1 MLJ 160;
Reliefs were separately valued and an interim decree was passed in respect of one; The matter was dismissed as settled out of court and refund ordered in respect of other two reliefs " as they were separable " (1965) 1 MLJ 169;
Section applies to testamentary suits also - (!969) 2 MLJ 524;
Suit settled out of court after the exparte decree was set aside " Refund can be ordered " (1974) 2 MLJ 137; (1979) 2 MLJ 86;
70. Refund of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence "
The fee paid by mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refunded.
" In advertence" is the result of the inattention and want of care on the part of the petitioner- 1980 TLNJ 398;
Adoption of erroneous procedure resulting in mistake " Refund of court fee " (1962) 1 MLJ 331;
Deliberate action " Not entitled to refund " 79 LW 392;
71. Instruments of partition "
Where the final decree in a partition suit has been engrossed on non-judicial stamps furnished by the parties, the court shall order the refund to the parties of so much of the valued fee paid by them as is equal to the value of the non-judicial stamps furnished by them.
72. Exemption of certain documents " Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee "
(i) Mukhtarnama, Vakalatnama or other written authority to institute or defend a suit when executed by a member of any of the Armed Forces of the Union not in civil employment;
(ii) memorandum of appearance filed by advocates or pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases;
(iii) Plaints and other documents in suits filed in village courts;
(iv) Plaints in suits before Collectors under Tamil Nadu Regulation XII of 1816;
(v) application or petition to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land revenue, or to the Board of Revenue relating to matters connected with the assessment of land or with the ascertainment of rights thereto or interest therein, if presented previous to the final confirmation of such settlement;
(vi) Application relating to a supply for irrigation of water belonging to Government;
(vii) Application for leave to extend cultivation or to relinquish land, when presented to an officer of land revenue by a person holding under a direct engagement with Government land of which revenue is settled but not permanently;
(viii) application for service of notice of relinquishment of land or of enhancement of rent;
(ix) written authority to an agent to distrain;
(x) first application (other than a petition containing a criminal charge of information ) for the summons of a witness or other person to attend either to give evidence or to produce a document or in respect of the production or filing of an exhibit not being an affidavit made for the immediate purpose of being produced in court;
(xi) bail bonds in criminal cases other than bail bonds in village court, recognizance's to prosecute or give evidence and recognizance's for personal appearance or otherwise.
(xii) petition, application, charge or information respecting any offence when presented, made or laid, to or before a police officer, or to or before the heads of villages or village police;
(xiii) petition by a prisoner or other person in duress or under restraint of any court or its officer.
(xiv) complaint of a public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1869) or an officer of the State Railway;
(xv) application for permission to cut timber in Government forests or otherwise relating to such forests, not being applications from forest contractors for extending the period of their leases;
(xvi) application for the payment of money due by the Government to the application, other than an application for refund of lapsed deposit made six months after the date on which the amount lapsed to the Government;
(xvii) petition of appeal against any municipal tax;
(xviii) application for compensation under any law, for the time being in force, relating to the acquisition of property for public purposes;
(xix) petition under Section 48 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (Central Act XV of 1872);
(xx) petition or appeal by a Government servant or a servant of the court of wards when presented to any superior officer or Government against orders of dismissal, reduction or suspension; copies of such orders filed with such appeals, and applications for obtaining such copies.
Criminal proceedings " when exemption is available "AIR 1966 AP 239 " (1961) 1 MLJ 149
73. Power to reduce or remit fees -
The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, reduce or remit, in the whole or in any part of the fees chargeable under this Act, and may, in like manner, cancel or vary such notification.
Remission of fee " power of Government " 1 LR 1957 MAD 821;
74. Collection of fees by stamps "
Allfees chargeable under this Act shall be collected by stamps.
Court fee cannot be in the form of money " 71 MLJ 804;
75. Stamps to be impressed or adhesive "
The stamps used to denote any fee chargeable under this Act shall be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive, as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, from time to time, direct.
Extent of power of Government " 19 Bom 145;
Stamp purchased in the particular state alone whether valid " (1949) 2 MLJ 159; 21 MLJ 533 " See also AIR 1960 Bom. 96 ; (1961) 2 And WR 262; - AIR 1959 Punjab 629; 1956 HP 38 " AIR 1969 Delhi 130;
76. Amended document "
Where any document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act is amended in order merely to correct a mistake and to make it conform to the original intention of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh stamp.
77. Cancellation of stamp "
No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any court or office until the stamp has been cancelled.
Such officer as the court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figurehead so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.
Cancellation of court fee " 35 MAD 567
78. Deduction to be made "
(1) Where allowance is made in this Act for damaged or spoiled stamps, the Collector may, on the application of the person concerned and on the production of the damaged or spoiled stamps after satisfying himself about the genuineness of such stamps, given in lieu thereof the same amount or value in stamps of the same or any other description, or if he applicant so desires, the same amount or the value in money;
Provided that in all cases where money is paid in cash, a deduction shall be made of five paise for each or fraction thereof, so however that the amount of such deduction shall not exceed one hundred rupees.
(2) Where fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of court, such refund shall be given effect to in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
Exchange of stolen stamp " offence under S 78 " 24 MAD 319;
79. Penalty "
Any person appointed to sell stamps, who disobeys any rule made under this Act, and any person, not so appointed, who sells or offers for sale any stamps, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
80. Power of High Court to make rules "
(1) The High Court may make rules to provide for or regulate all or any of the following matters, namely;-
(a) the fees payable for serving and executing processes issued by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction and by the Civil and Criminal Courts subordinate thereto;
(b) the remuneration of persons employed by the Courts mentioned in clause(a) in the service or exemption of processes;
(c ) the fixing the District and Sessions Judges and District Magistrates of the number of process-servers necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued from their respective courts and the courts subordinate thereto;
(d) the display in each court of a table in the English and in the local language or languages showing the fees payable for the service and execution of processes.
(2) All rules made under Sub-section (1) shall be subject to confirmation by the State Government and on such confirmation shall be published in the St. George Gazette and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act.
Rules framed under the section have the force of AIR 1930 MAD 318;
Remission by Government of process fee payable on the original side was not valid " (1957) 1 MLJ 188;
81. Power of Board of Revenue to make rules.-
(1) the Board of Revenue may, with the previous sanction of the State Government , make rules consistent with this Act to provide for or regulate all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the board of revenue and by the revenue courts;
(b) the remuneration of the persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes;
(c ) the fixing by collectors of the number of persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes;
(d) the guidance of collectors in exercise of their powers under Chapter VI;
(e) the supply of stamps to be used under this Act;
(f) the number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee chargeable under this Act;
(g) the keeping of accounts of all stamps used under this Act;
(h) the circumstances in which stamps may be held to be damaged or spoiled;
(i) the circumstances in which, the manner in which, and the authorities by which, allowance for used, damaged or spoiled stamps may be made;
(j) the regulation of the sale of stamps to be used under this Act, the persons, by whom alone such stamps may be sold and the duties and remuneration of such persons;
Provided that, in the case of stamps used in the High court, such rules shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief justice.
Inserted by T.N. Act V of 1976 (1-A) A rule may be made under sub-section (1) so as to have retrospective effect on and from a date not earlier than the 15th September, 1965.
(2) All rules made under this Section shall be published in the Fort St. George Gazette and on such publication, shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
There is nothing illegal in permitting a plaintiff to file a plaint with stamps of a denomination smaller than the one required, if the requisite stamp are not available and the court ought to grant time to rectify the defects " AIR 1937 MAD 266;
82. Power of Government to make rules.-
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, make rules to carry out generally the purposes of this Act.
(2) All notifications and rules made under this Section shall, as soon as possible, after they are made, be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly for one month, and shall be subject to such modification whether by way of repeal or amendment as the Legislative Assembly may make during the session in which they are so laid.
83.Continuance in force of existing rules "
Until rules are framed under sections 80,81 and 82 and until notifications are issued under section 73, the rules and notifications now in force in respect of matters referred to in those sections, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, continue.
84. Amendment of Central Act III of 1873 "
In the Madras Civil Court Act, 1873 (Central Act III of 1873), section 14 shall be omitted.
85. Repeal of Central Act IV of 1877-
The Presidency magistrates (Court fees) Act, 1877 (Central Act IV of 1877) in so far as it applies to the State of Tamil Nadu, is hereby repealed.
86. Amendment of Central Act VII of 1892 "
In the Madras City Civil Courts Act, 1892, (Central Act VII of 1892), Section 9 and 13 shall be omitted.
87. Repeal and saving "
(1) The court fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870), in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu and in relation to the fees and stamps relating to documents presented or to be presented before an officer serving under the Central Government and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887) in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu are hereby repealed.
(2) All suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise arising therefrom, whether instituted before or after such commencement shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the court fees act, 1870 (Central act VII of 1870), be governed by the provisions of the said acts and the rules made there under.
"Proceedings" " meaning of " (1956) 1 MLJ 63; (1960) 2 MLJ 207;
88. Savings in respect of the transferred territory "
In respect of the transferred territory, all suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Tamil Nadu (transferred territory) Extension of laws act, 1965, and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise, arising therefrom, whether instituted before or after such commencement, shall notwithstanding the repeal of the corresponding law by the said act, be governed by the provisions of the said corresponding law and the rules made thereunder.
Explanation " In this section, the expression "corresponding law" shall mean the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 (Travancore " Cochin Act II of 1125 and the Travancore, cochin suits valuation act, 1125 (Travancore, cochin act IV of 1125).
|Tamil Nadu State Acts|