( 1. ) THE statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') reads as under:

"THE Court Fees Act, 1870 was enacted more than 80 years ago, conditions have materially changed since then and litigation has grown enormously in variety and complexity. THE application of the old rules to altered facts and the extension of the rules to cover new cases have resulted in a jumble of statutory and case law which, at many points, is indefensible on principle and is a source of all-round inconvenience. THE Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887), makes its own contribution to the incongruities with which this branch of the law abounds. Rationalization of the law relating to court-fees and suits valuation has, for the last 20 years , been regarded as an urgent measure of judicial reform. This Bill seeks to achieve that object. Rules relating to court-fees and rules relating to valuation of suits are so interlocked that it is considered expedient to have both sets of rule enacted as parts of a single Act. THE method of valuing suits forms one Chapter in this Bill. THE main purpose of this Bill is to place the law relating to court-fees and suits valuation on an ordered basis. It should not be left to the choice of a party whether a suit would be decided by a District Munsif or in a superior Court. Nor should it be easy for the litigant to determine what court-fee he would pay, by merely manipulating allegations and finding adroit language for relief. THE Bill would apply to all proceedings in courts and offices in this State, subject to two exceptions. THE first exception relates to the Presidency Court of Small Causes. THE Presidency Small Courts Act, 1882 (Central Act XV of 1882), contains specific provisions relating fee payable in proceedings in the Presidency Small Cause Courts. It has been considered proper to leave that Court untouched. THE second exception relates to proceedings under any special Act, where such Act itself specifies the fee payable. Chapter II of the Bill formulates liability to pay fee. Chapter III prescribes the procedure by which questions arising in relation to fee shall be determined. Chapter IV prescribes the method of computation of fee. Various clauses of suits are dealt with independently in separate clauses and there is a residuary clause relating to suits not other wise provided for. Fee is made payable not merely by a plaintiff who seeks and obtains relief but also by a defendant who seeks and obtains affirmative relief. In prescribing rate of fee, care is taken to see that mere alterations in language of allegations or relief do not result in any difference in the rate of fee payable. Further, the rules are so framed that, on disputes of equal value. Fees of equal amount are paid. If a person institutes a suit for a building worth Rs. 10,000, he has to institute it in a District Court or Sub-Court and pay court-fee computed on Rs.10,000. THE same rules are made applicable where such a person institutes a suit for land worth Rs. 10,000. Fee is payable in appeals on the same principles as in suits. Chapter V provides for valuation of suits. THE rules are so framed as to give finality to litigation on any subject-matter. At present, if three persons own in common properties of the value of Rs.21,000, and the value of one person's share is Rs.3,000, of another person's Rs. 6,000 and, of the other person's Rs.12,000, a suit for partition and separate possession has to be instituted in the Court of the District Munsif if the person whose share is worth Rs.3,000 happens to be the plaintiff. THE result is that, if the shares of the other two persons have to institute a suit later for partition, such suit would have to be instituted in a Sub-Court or a District Court and decisions given in the earlier suit in the District Munsif's Court may not have binding effect on the ground of res judicate in the