1.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) - New Court Fee Act that was introduced on 1.2.2010 providing for higher scale of levy of court fee for specific performance - Amendment of plaint to include the relief for specific performance was allowed on 12.9.2007 - Suit was dismissed for default on 31.10.2007 and it was restored on 16.01.2010 - If the court had condoned the delay in payment of court fee and allowed for carrying out the amendment, it ought to be taken that the order itself became effective from the original order allowing the amendment on 12.9.2007 - Consequently, the court fee payable would only be under the Court Fees Act applicable on that day and not the scales of court fee as were introduced by a subsequent Amendment. (174) PLR
  2.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) - Plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of the property in dispute alleging himself to be in joint possession, though this fact has been strongly denied by the defendant on the basis of evidence and a finding has been recorded by the trial Court - Fixed Court fee is payable on the memorandum of appeal even though the trial Court had found the plaintiff not to be in possession of some or all such properties.  (177) PLR
  3.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 6(2)(3) (as applicable to U.P.)- First appellate court in its order rightly observed that after amendment of plaint and consequent amendment in valuation, the trial court did not pass any order specifying time for payment of deficient court-fee - Obviously, in the absence of such specific order, sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of 1870 Act would not come into operation against the plaintiff - High Court was also in error in holding that deficiency in court-fee in respect of plaint cannot be made good during the appellate stage - In this regard, the High Court, overlooked well known legal position that appeal is continuation of suit and the power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court - It failed to bear in mind that what could be done by the trial court in the proceeding of the suit, can always be done by the appellate court in the interest of justice - Provision clearly empowers the appellate court to direct a party to make up deficit court-fee in the plaint at the appellate stage. (S.C.)(179) PLR
  4.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7 - Suit for damages - Causing physical-mental harassment, agony and malicious prosecution - Principles of evaluation of suit as in simple suits for recovery of liquidated claims will not apply for the purpose of court fee, in such a suit valuation put by the plaintiff has to be tentative and cannot be disputed where the court is unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, plaintiff cannot be called upon to pay entire court fee, which is yet to be ascertained.  (183) PLR
  5.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7 (IV)(C) - When an executant of a document seeks to assail the document, it is another way of seeking for cancellation of the document which a person will be otherwise bound if such a relief is not sought for - Where the plaintiff is a party to the document which was required to be set aside, ad valorem court fee is bound to be paid as per the Court Fees Act.  (179) PLR
  6.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(4)(c) - Fact that plaintiffs-appellants did not affix the court fee the suit was dismissed - Appeal filed along with an appeal, an application under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission of the Court to file an appeal as indigent persons was also filed - The lower Appellate Court after noticing the contentions of the parties to the lis, dismissed the application filed under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC - Appellate Court ought to have given at least one opportunity to affix the Court fee.  (178) PLR
  7.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(ii) - Claim for maintenance - Ten times the annual maintenance as the valuation of court fee is very stiff and unrealistic - A claim to maintenance in matrimonial setting in India is predominantly by wife and to lesser degree by parents, who have not the resources to fend for themselves - To burden them with a stiff levy of court fee by an artificial escalation by factoring ten times the annual maintenance is not merely meaningless but oppressive - They shall operate against gender justice.(181) PLR
  8.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(ii) - Court as a guardian for the State resources must ensure that the appropriate court fee is paid and if it is not properly valued, the Court shall follow the procedure as prescribed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to direct the court fee to be paid and reject the plaint if the court fee is not paid under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 1(c).(181) PLR
  9.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Court fee - Where the plaintiff is found in possession of some portion of suit property he is required to pay a fixed court fee. (182) PLR
  10.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - For the purpose of assessment of court fee, the pleadings in the suit have to be seen - The claim made in the plaint is that the plaintiff is entitled to share in the property left by his parents, as they died intestate, hence, he being one of the legal heirs, has share in the property, partition of which has been sought - Every co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of co-shared property even if he is not in actual physical possession - This is a presumption in law - The possession will include deemed possession of a co-sharer in joint property - Fixed court fee is payable on a suit filed by a person seeking partition and possession in a joint property even if he is not in possession of any part of it.  (180) PLR
  11.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - If the non-executant of a document, transferring the rights in the property, seeks declaration and is not in possession, he is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee, but at the same time if the said non-executant/plaintiff is seeking possession by way of partition of the said property to the extent of his share, the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee to the extent of his share only and not on the entire value of the suit  property. (178) PLR 
  12.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - It is not disputed that sale is of joint family property - Every member in joint family property has community of interest and unity of possession in the land held by such joint family - Petitioner-plaintiff thus even otherwise cannot be taken to be out of possession - If the main relief of avoidance of sale deed sought for by the petitioner is not granted to him, relief of joint possession has also to be declined because it flows from the main relief itself and had no separate existence - In short, relief of joint possession has no separate and independent existence in absence of the relief of avoidance of sale deed, which is the main relief sought by the petitioner-plaintiff - It was not a case of payment of ad-valorem - Court Fee.  (179) PLR
  13.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Petitioner claims to be a co-sharer in the property on the basis of natural succession and seeks declaration that the mutation of inheritance of deceased is null and void, it being without the knowledge and without mentioning the name of petitioner as legal heir of deceased - It is also claimed by the petitioner that the subsequent sale deeds are based on illegal and wrongful mutation and the petitioner is not an executant to the sale deeds, nor the relief of possession has been claimed by the petitioner - I, therefore, hold that for aforesaid reasons, he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale deeds. (173) PLR
  14.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Petitioners seeking declaration that they are owners and cancellation of the sale deeds and that they are not party to the sale deeds - Are not required to pay the ad valorem  court fee. (182) PLR
  15.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Plaintiff having stepped into the shoes of the executant of sale deed, is liable to pay ad valorem court fees on sale consideration thereof. (174) PLR
  16.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(IV)(C) - Plaintiffs state that the power of attorney was executed but would only contend that it was cancelled, which cancellation has taken place not in the manner referred to under Section 206, it must be taken that the sale executed by the power of attorney must be taken as a sale by the plaintiffs themselves and a suit for declaration would consequently require the court fee to be assessed - Plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration recited in the sale deeds - Contract Act (9 of 1872) S. 206. (183) PLR
  17.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Relief sought by the petitioner that sale deed are not binding upon them and seeking declaration to the effect that sale deeds viz-a-viz  be declared null and void and do not have binding effect upon the rights of the petitioners - In my view, it does not amount to cancellation of sale deed, moreover, it is admitted position of law that petitioners-plaintiffs are not party to the sale deed and therefore, can not be allowed to pay ad valorem court fee.  (182) PLR
  18.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Since plaintiff has also claimed alternative relief of possession of the suit land and has also claimed relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on value of the suit land, in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (c) read with Section 7 (v) of the Act - Haryana - In  case of agricultural land, the market value for purpose of court fee is to be fixed at Rs.60 per acre, Rs. 50 per acre or Rs. 30 per acre, depending on the kind of the land. (173) PLR
  19.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Since the plaintiff has claimed specific amounts under different heads, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the said amounts - Impugned order of the trial court is patently illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because court fee is to be paid on the relief claimed in the plaint and not on the relief that may be granted by the court after adjudication of the suit. (173) PLR 4
  20.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(iv)(c) - Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and cancellation of documents and declaration in respect of parcel of land - Petitioner/defendant had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under O.7 R.11 CPC - The first point raised in the said application was that the High Court vide order qranted a period of four weeks for deposit of amount - Court fee was filed with a delay of two days - Reasoning given by the learned judge is that four weeks in common parlance is taken to mean one month - If the same is taken by weeks then it would be 28 days but if taken as a month it would tantamount to 30 days - In the instant case it is this calculation which has resulted in delayed deposit of the deficient court fees by two days - Thus on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning the contention of the petitioner/defendant was rejected - A party must keep in mind that the procedural laws are for the purpose of facilitating the final adjudication of the lis between the parties. (180) PLR (Del.)
  21.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(IV)(C) and (V) - Court fee in case of land irrigated by perennial canal is Rs.60 per acre and in case of land irrigated by non-perennial canal or by well is Rs.50 per acre - Therefore, a combined reading of clause 7(4) (c) and (v) shows that the valuation has to be valued as set out in the plaint subject to the condition that it cannot be less than value mentioned in clause (v) -  Value given in the plaint is to be taken as the value for the purpose of Court Fee Act subject to the condition that it cannot be less than Rs.60/- or Rs.50/- per acre, as stated above.  (182) PLR
  22.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 7(V) - Plaintiffs  are liable to pay court fee on ad-valorem value of the suit land for the relief of possession - Trial Court has directed the plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land as per collector rates - However, there is no basis for order of the trial Court regarding collector rates of the suit land -  On the contrary, according to Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, in case of agricultural land, the market value shall be ten times the land revenue of the land.  (173) PLR
  23.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S. 9, 10 - Valuation - Circle rate cannot be taken to be arbitrary - Cannot accept this argument that it will be irrelevant for the purpose of court fee - Trial Court has been very cautious that it did not close the issue and allowed the valuation to stand and has left the matter for scope for collection of additional court fee at appropriate time if better details are obtained or when it is redetermined later - In the event of decree in favour of the plaintiff, the decree will not be drawn up till the appropriate valuation is made in the light of Sections 9 and 10 for determination of valuation of property on date of suit.  (179) PLR
  24.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) S.16 - Refund of fee - Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any of the mode of settlement or dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the "CPC") and a settlement is arrived at, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the court fee on the basis of a certificate to be issued by the Court - Neither the dispute was referred by the Court for the compromise nor the compromise is provided as a mode of settlement in Section 89 of the C.P.C. - If the parties in the present case had opted for an out-of-court compromise which was brought to the notice of the Court for the purpose of withdrawal of the suit, it was at the peril of the plaintiff who had to loose the amount of the court fee appended with the plaint, affixed while seeking recovery of a particular amount. (178) PLR
  25.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) Second Schedule, Article 17(iii) - If a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that it is invalid and nonest but where the prayer of consequential relief of possession is not asked for, then only fixed Court fees is to be paid - Only the plaint is to be looked at in the initial stage and the resort to rejection of the plaint is not to be done in a routine manner and only in exceptional cases - Order dismissing rejection of plaint - Upheld - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7, Rule 11. (178) PLR 
  26.         Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) Second Schedule, Article 17(iii) - Power of Attorney was executed in favour of defendant no. 1, on the basis of which, the sale deeds were executed by the plaintiffs which would go on to show that the plaintiffs themselves were executant through their attorney - In such circumstances, it would not lie in their mouth to say that they are not executants and not liable to pay the Court fees - Two categories would be liable to pay ad valorem Court fee, one where an executant of a document wants a deed to be annulled and where the non-executant not in possession seeks for the relief of possession, he is required to pay ad valorem Court fees  - In the case of a non-executant, seeking annulment of a deed to which he is not a party, he is only to pay fixed Court Fees as per Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fee Act, 1870 - Relevant observations read as under Tarsem Singh v. Vinod Kumar 2014(1) ICC 1054 followed. (178) PLR  

 


Supreme Court e@journal
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Download

Android App

on the Google Play Store

SUPREME COURT e@Journal

 

  PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

 Reporting Since 1900

articles

Privacy Policy | Cookie policy | Sitemap
(c) Punjab Law Reporter / punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502
Log out | Edit