TELANGANA COURT-FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1956
(1) This Act may be called the 1[Telangana Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956].
2[(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh].
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the 3[Andhra Pradesh Gazette] appoint.
____________________
1. Subs. for the original short title by the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Laws (Amendment of Short Titles) Act, 1961 (Act IX of 1961).
2. Subs. for the original sub-section by Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suit Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act IV of 1958).
3. Substituted for the words "Andhra Gazette" by the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of La
(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to documents presented or to be presented before an officer serving under the Central Government.
(2) The provisions of this Act relating to the levy of fee shall be subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such law.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :--
(i) "Appeal" includes a cross objection;
(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; and
(iv) expressions used and not defined in this Act or in the 1[Andhra Pradesh] General Clauses Act, 1891 (Act 1 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.
______________________
1. Substit
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, except on payment of the fee chargeable in respect of such document under this Act :
Provided that a document in respect of which the proper fee has not been paid may be filed or exhibited in a Criminal Court if the court deems it necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
SupremeToday AI Service seems to be Down for a While!
When a document on which the whole or any part of the fee payable under this Act has not been paid is produced or received in any Court or Public Office, the court or the head of the office may, at any time, direct the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the fee or part thereof, as the case may be within such time as may be fixed; and upon such payment, the document shall be dealt with as if the full fee had been paid in the first instance.
(1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs based on the same cause of action are sought, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs :
Provided that, if a relief sought is only 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 leviable on the reliefs.
(3) (a) Where a suit is based on two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought in respect thereof, either alternatively or cumulatively, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees that would be chargeable on the plaints un
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.
A written statement pleading a set off or counter claim shall be chargeable with fee in the same manner as a plaint.
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.
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.
(1) (a) In every suit the court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials furnished by the plaintiff the proper fee payable thereon.
(b) The decision of the court under clause (a) regarding the proper fee payable shall be subject to review, from time to time, as occasion requires.
(2) Any defendant may 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 the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908). If the court decides that the subject matter of the suit is not properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a da
A plaintiff who has been required to pay additional fee may relinquish a part of his claim and apply to have the plaint so amended that the fee paid is sufficient for the claim made in the plaint as amended. The court may allow such application on such terms as it considers just; the court may permit the plaintiff at any later stage of the suit to add to the claim the part so relinquished on payment of the additional fee.
Where fee is payable under this Act on a written statement filed by a defendant, the provisions of section 11 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.
The provisions of Sections 10 to 12 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 in an appeal under the Letters Patent.
The provisions of Sections 10 to 12 shall apply to the determinations and levy of fee in respect of petitions, applications and other proceedings in courts in the same way as they apply to the determination and levy of fee on plaints in suits.
(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 the valuation of subject matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in such courts, and orders, if any, passed by the Courts in relation thereto.
(2) Questions relating to valuation of subject-matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in a court raised in reports submitted by such Court-fee Examiners shall be heard and decided by such courts.
Legal Comments
"Section 16" - Jurisdiction for valuation disputes - Appellate power to determine valuation correctness or order fresh valuation - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Essential ingredients" - Section 16 empowers Court to determine valuation of subject-matter and fee sufficiency; may appoint commissioners; ensure proper valuation to maintain jurisdiction - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Essential ingredients" - Not applicable if case falls under other sections; Section 16 interacts with Sections 11(3), 16, 17 on valuation and commissioning reports - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Scope" - Applies to suits and proceedings under Telangana Act; governs how reliefs and subject-matter are valued for court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction, including injunctions, partitions, and transfers - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ]
"Scope" - For injunctions, relief valuation is not necessarily market value but must consider relief sought; not to penalize plaintiff for not proving title - [K. Subramanya Naidu, K. Kuppanaidu VS Adilakshmiammal Param Subhadramma], [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ]
"Punishment for Section" - No explicit criminal punishment; penalties relate to improper valuation exposure and potential dismissal or required amendment of plaint; constitutional validity analyzed in several precedents but no direct penal clause in Section 16 itself - (general note: no explicit punishment clause in cited sources)
"Judicial interpretation" - Section 16 is not a standalone constraint on every valuation; it complements Section 26 (injunction) and Section 11/17 procedures for accuracy; courts have emphasized that valuation should reflect genuine pecuniary jurisdiction without causing injustice - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana], [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ]
"Interplay with Section 66/66( Telangana amendments)" - Refunds/refiling of court-fees under related provisions; refunds allowed for mistakes under Section 151 CPC where applicable, but Section 66 provisions relate to refunds in Telangana framework; ensure consistency when transferring between courts or states - [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University]
"Commissions and expert reports" - Appellate Court may appoint a Commissioner to determine valuation; report may be evidence; final decision on fee payable may depend on such reports - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Valuation of relief in injunction suits" - For Section 26(c) relief, value is notionally assigned to relief rather than market value; court may enhance if absurdly undervalued; consistency with AP practice on Section 26(c) - [K. Subramanya Naidu, K. Kuppanaidu VS Adilakshmiammal Param Subhadramma], [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna]
"Pecuniary jurisdiction vs. valuation" - Pecuniary jurisdiction depends on the subject-matter value; valuation for court-fee may differ from jurisdiction unless governed by specific rules; Sections 8, 16, 11(3) interplay governs alignment or discrepancy - [Y. VENKATA SESHA REDDY VS CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA], [A. K. LOGANATHAN VS CHANNARAYAPPA]
"Illustrative case principle" - When valuation is challenged, appellate/KoH may consider whether to remit to a Commissioner to fix proper value; report constitutes legal evidence and can alter fee orders - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Litigation management" - Courts urge meticulous calculation of Court Fees before presenting plaints to reduce burdens on judiciary; Section 16 supports correction rather than punitive measures - [Venkateshwara Developers, rep. by its Managing Partners, Mr. Anumula Srujan & Mr. Chilukamarri Ravi VS Arepally Jeevan Rao]
"Injunction-specific guidance" - In suits for permanent injunction, court fee is determined by relief value; if relief involves possession or title, consider whether relief is declaratory or substantive to tax fees accordingly - [K. Subramanya Naidu, K. Kuppanaidu VS Adilakshmiammal Param Subhadramma], [Y. VENKATA SESHA REDDY VS CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA]
"Procedure on misvaluation" - If misvaluation is found, court may require amendment and payment of deficit; failure may lead to dismissal under Order VII Rule 11, but Section 16 procedures may permit reconsideration without undue prejudice - [A. K. LOGANATHAN VS CHANNARAYAPPA], [Manjeet Kaur VS Sukhdev Singh]
"Exemption and detentions context" - Section 67(10) exemptions (detenues/prisoners) may apply in Telangana-adjacent or Andhra practices; not intrinsic to Section 16 but relevant to overall court-fee frameworks in related cases - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [00200052061]
"Relation to Article 227 (Constitution of India)" - High Courts retain supervisory power to ensure proper application of Telangana Court Fees Act; Article 227 petitions may assess whether Section 16 was properly applied; decisions in other states provide persuasive guidance but not binding here - [Venkateshwara Developers, rep. by its Managing Partners, Mr. Anumula Srujan & Mr. Chilukamarri Ravi VS Arepally Jeevan Rao],
"Interstate and reorganisation context" - Legacy Hyderabad Act provisions continue in Telangana territories per States Reorganisation Act-era rulings; applicable to Section 16 interpretation when parties challenge fee orders across Telangana-adjacent jurisdictions - [Bh. Satyanarayanamurthi VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench], [00200000493]
"Key takeaway" - Section 16 of Telangana Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 empowers courts to determine and rectify valuation issues, appoint commissioners, and ensure proper fee payment, thereby protecting jurisdictional boundaries without punishing legitimate relief claims; it must be read with other sections to avoid procedural pitfalls - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana], [A. K. LOGANATHAN VS CHANNARAYAPPA], [Y. VENKATA SESHA REDDY VS CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA]
"Practical tip" - When drafting plaints in Telangana, precisely state the reliefs and value the reliefs for Section 26(c) (injunction) and for jurisdiction under Section 16(2); consider whether to seek a court-fee examiner's report if valuation complexity arises - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana]
"Case law anchor" - Notable lines of authority demonstrate the Court’s cautious stance on valuation corrections: not to frustrate access to justice, but to ensure fair, consistent application of court-fees and jurisdiction rules; use of Commissioners and re-valuation is permissible where warranted - [Gadde Veeramma VS Bayipati Satyanarayana], [Y. VENKATA SESHA REDDY VS CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA]
References
For the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the court may hold such inquiry as it considers necessary and may if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the court.
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 considers it just or necessary to do so, give notice to the State Government; and where such notice is given, the State Government shall be deemed to be a party to the suit or other proceeding as regards the determination of any question in the enquiry aforesaid and the courts decision on such question shall, where it passes a decree or final order in such suit or proceeding, form part of such decree or final order.
The fee payable under this Act shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II.
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.
Section 20 of the Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, governs the valuation of suits for money, including claims for damages, arrears, or other sums payable periodically. It is a key provision that determines the basis for calculating court fees and jurisdiction in monetary suits, ensuring that the valuation aligns with the nature of the claim and the relief sought.
Section 20 stipulates that in suits for money, the court fee should be computed on the amount claimed in the suit, including damages, arrears, or other sums payable periodically. It emphasizes that the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction should be consistent and based on the amount or value of the claim, unless specific provisions or rules provide otherwise.
Section 20 applies broadly to all suits claiming monetary relief, including damages, arrears of payments, or periodic sums. It governs the basis for valuation in civil suits where the primary relief involves money. The section also interacts with other provisions and rules that specify valuation methods for particular types of suits, such as suits for possession, injunctions, or specific performance.
There is no explicit punishment prescribed under Section 20 for incorrect valuation or non-compliance. However, courts have the authority to revise valuations under Section 11 and to reject or return suits if the valuation or court fee is improperly paid, which can lead to delays or dismissal of suits. Incorrect valuation can also lead to procedural irregularities, affecting jurisdiction and enforceability.
Valuation - Suit for money should be valued on the claim amount, including damages or arrears, as per Section 20. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Court Fee - Court fee is payable based on the amount claimed in the suit, and this valuation must be consistent with the relief sought. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction is determined by the valuation of the suit, which must align with the court fee paid; misvaluation can affect jurisdiction. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Misvaluation - Courts can revise or reject suits if the valuation for court fee or jurisdiction is found to be incorrect or arbitrary. [Section 11, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Claim for Damages - Damages or other periodic sums should be included in the valuation, and the court fee should be calculated accordingly. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Interaction with Rules - Specific rules under the Act or amendments may prescribe different valuation methods; Section 20 provides the general rule. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Injunction Suits - In suits for injunction where damages are claimed, valuation for court fee is based on the relief or the value of the property, whichever is higher, but for suits for damages, Section 20 applies directly. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Periodic Payments - Suits claiming arrears or periodic sums should be valued on the amount claimed, and courts may assess the valuation based on the claim's nature. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Legal Consistency - The valuation under Section 20 must be consistent with the relief claimed; undervaluation to evade court fees is liable to correction or rejection. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Interaction with Other Sections - The section interacts with Sections 21, 23, and 24, which govern suits for immovable property, possession, and declaration, respectively, but for suits for money, Section 20 is primary. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Procedure for Valuation - The plaintiff is responsible for correctly valuing the suit for court fee purposes; courts have the power to revise or call for additional fees if undervalued. [Section 11, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Legal Precedents - Courts have consistently held that suits for damages or money claims should be valued on the actual claim amount, and courts can correct valuations if found to be inconsistent. [Supreme Court judgments, e.g., Satheedevi v. Prasanna, 2010 SCC 622]
Impact of Non-Compliance - Improper valuation can lead to suits being returned or dismissed, affecting the plaintiff’s right to proceed. [Section 11, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Role of Court Fee in Jurisdiction - Proper valuation ensures courts with appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction hear the case; undervaluation can restrict jurisdiction. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Valuation in Practice - Courts often examine the claim and evidence to ensure valuation reflects the actual amount or value of the relief claimed, preventing evasion of fees. [Judicial practice, e.g., various High Court rulings]
No Punitive Measures - While courts can correct valuation, there are no specific penalties under Section 20; procedural rectification suffices. [Section 11, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
Special Cases - Certain suits, such as those for recovery of specific sums or damages, are explicitly governed by Section 20, while others may be covered by specific provisions or rules. [Section 20, Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956]
This concise commentary highlights the core legal principles and judicial interpretations surrounding Section 20, emphasizing the importance of accurate valuation for maintaining procedural integrity and ensuring proper jurisdictional exercise.
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a suit relating to immovable property, fee shall be computed on three fourths of the market value of the property.
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 sought 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.
(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; or
(b) where the subject matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court, whichever is higher.
(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 where the plaintiff's title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied:
Provided that where such denial 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
In a suit for a declaration with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25 :--
(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 movable property or three fourths of the market value of the immovable property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer is for declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee snail 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 ba
In a suit for a declaration involving a question as to the factum or validity of an adoption, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the movable and immovable property involved in, or affected by such declaration or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher.
In a suit for injunction :--
(a) where the relief sought relates to any immovable property, and where the plaintiff's title to the property is denied, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher;
(b) where the relief sought 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 at which such relief is valued by the court, 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
Legal Comments
"Scope" - Section 26 of the Telangana/Andhra style Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act governs valuation of relief in suits for injunction; the scope includes how reliefs are valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and interacts with other provisions on jurisdiction and valuation [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna], [SUBRAO RANBA RAVALU KEDARI VS KALLAPPA NANA KADAPURE], [N. A. Siddiqui VS State Of A. P. ].
"Notionally valued relief" - In injunction suits, relief is often notionally valued for court-fee purposes under Section 26(c); the plaint value for relief determines court fee, while jurisdiction may rely on a different valuation for immovable property in certain cases, but often the two are linked via Section 50/Section 8 principles [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna], [Hira Basu VS The Municipal Commissioner], [My Palace Mutually Aided Housing Co-operative Society Limited VS State Of A. P. ].
"Same value for fee and jurisdiction (generally)" - Several decisions hold that the value used to compute court fees should align with jurisdictional valuation, i.e., same figure for fee and jurisdiction, especially where no contrary rule under Section 9/8 exists; exceptions exist when rules provide a contrary valuation framework (e.g., Punjab/Delhi Delhi rules, or Lahore High Court rules applicability) [A. K. LOGANATHAN VS CHANNARAYAPPA], [WIDRAMAC SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS J. E. C. CABMAC PRIVATE LIMITED. , NEW DELHI], [Sundarrajan and Others VS Vellai Vinayagar Koil and Others].
"Injunction without declaration" - For suits for injunction without declaration, the court-fee is determined on the relief value, not necessarily market value; Supreme Court has held that such injunction suits are not declaratory decrees and the fee is based on relief value, with controversy resolved via Sathappa Chettiar/AIR 1958 SC 245 line of authority [N. A. Siddiqui VS State Of A. P. ], [Dena Devi Others VS Sardar Trilochan Singh].
"Market value vs relief value" - In many injunction contexts, moot is whether to tax on market value or on relief value; the controlling authority often treats relief value as determinative for court fee, while market value may govern jurisdiction when relevant, leading to potential dual valuations, but subject to statutory framework (Section 8/50 interplay) [SUBRAO RANBA RAVALU KEDARI VS KALLAPPA NANA KADAPURE], [Victoria VS Yesuraj Kumar], [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna].
"Section 50 interplay" - Section 50(1)/(2) of the Karnataka/Andhra framework indicates that where no specific provision exists, the value for court-fee and jurisdiction shall be the same; where a fixed fee applies, jurisdiction uses market/fixed criteria; this nexus is central to determining proper revision grounds [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna], [A. K. LOGANATHAN VS CHANNARAYAPPA], [PUSHPA SHIVAPRASAD VS C. G. SAROJAMMA].
"Two valuations allowed in some contexts" - Some decisions recognize that two valuations may exist for separate purposes (e.g., court-fee vs jurisdiction) under long-standing precedent (Sathappa Chettiar logic) when the Act or local rules permit, though modern uniformity aims at consistency; courts often permit two valuations where litigants invoke distinct reliefs or in partition/accounts contexts per Rule 8 and Section 9 schemes [Victoria VS Yesuraj Kumar], [WIDRAMAC SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS J. E. C. CABMAC PRIVATE LIMITED. , NEW DELHI].
"Two-stage challenge and revision" - Revisions can challenge valuation aspects when they affect jurisdiction; courts scrutinize whether undervaluation/overvaluation prejudices disposal, but second provisos of Section 115 CPC limit interference unless it would cause miscarriage of justice or final disposal; precedent allows revisiting valuation in certain contexts if jurisdiction affected [LADY TANUMATI GIRIJAPRASAD CHINUBHAI SINCE DECD VS SPEICAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,western RLY. AHMEDABAD. ], [Baldev Singh Bhatia VS The Commissioner, Nagar Palika], [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University].
"Under-valuation and remittance to proper forum" - If valuation is improper for the forum (e.g., exceeds pecuniary limits), courts may remand to the proper Court with directions on valuation/jurisdiction; such remands depend on proper application of Section 11 Suits Valuation Act and related rules [Sundarrajan and Others VS Vellai Vinayagar Koil and Others], [Karanam Rammamurthy VS Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Palakonda Division].
"Exemption and special categories" - Some petitions and writs may attract exemptions from court-fees (e.g., detenues/prisoners under section 67(10)); such exemptions alter the practical calculation but do not alter core valuation rules for suits (though applicability varies by state act) [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [00200052061], [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ].
"Defendant’s right to challenge valuation" - Defendants may challenge plaintiff’s valuation as to correctness; if valuation is found improper, courts may direct amendment of valuation and payment of deficit, or quash/set aside orders and remand; the governing principle is to ensure proper court-fee payment and prevent evasion [My Palace Mutually Aided Housing Co-operative Society Limited VS State Of A. P. ], [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna].
"Relief-specific valuation in partition and injunction" - In partition-related suits, value for jurisdiction is typically based on the value of the whole property (Rule 8 Punjab High Court/Delhi reference), though local statutes may require valuation of each relief; courts consider whether the relief is ancillary or primary to determine fee/jurisdiction split [LADY TANUMATI GIRIJAPRASAD CHINUBHAI SINCE DECD VS SPEICAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,western RLY. AHMEDABAD. ], [Sundarrajan and Others VS Vellai Vinayagar Koil and Others].
"Credit for prior fees in appeals" - When an appeal involves credits for fees already paid on preliminary/decree stages, courts examine whether provisions like Section 49 proviso permit credit; courts have held that credit can be given for fee paid in earlier stages where statutory provisions permit [V. Narasimha Gupta VS Minor Prabhakar Reddy, by next friend Saman Changa Reddy].
"Writs under Art. 226 and Telangana Hyderabad Act" - Writ petitions under Article 226 in Telangana areas involve nuanced application of Hyderabad Act vs Andhra Act; Supreme/High Courts have held specific Rs. 2 vs Rs. 100 penalties depending on territorial and historical jurisdiction, and whether Hyderabad Act applies post-reorganisation [Bh. Satyanarayanamurthi VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench], [Bh. Satyanarayanamurti VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench], [00200003163].
"Effect of misvaluation on pecuniary jurisdiction" - If a suit is valued beyond the court’s pecuniary limit, it may need to be remitted to a higher court; valuation must be examined with respect to both court-fee and jurisdiction; in injunction contexts, some courts allow proceeding despite valuation disputes if the facts show still within jurisdiction after considering relief value [Vijay Kumar VS Mst. Shakuntala Devi], [00200034463].
"Notional relief value and revision outcomes" - Courts may permit notional valuation for relief (e.g., injunction relief notionally valued) and allow revision petitions to proceed if the notional figure places the suit within proper jurisdiction; this is particularly relevant where the real property market value would distort fee/jurisdiction [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna], [Karanam Rammamurthy VS Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Palakonda Division].
"Res judicata and valuation-related decisions" - In some decisions, valuation and court-fee issues intertwine with res judicata and relief scope; courts have rejected attempts to reuse earlier valuations where pleadings or reliefs changed; the valuation must align with pleaded reliefs to avoid errors [Manjeet Kaur VS Sukhdev Singh].
"General warning to practitioners" - Several sources emphasize careful calculation of court-fee and jurisdictional values, especially in complex suits with injunction, possession, partition, or multiple reliefs; errors lead to remands, re-filing, or cost consequences; practitioners should verify whether reliefs are not declaratory, and whether notional valuations align with 26(c) rules [Venkateshwara Developers, rep. by its Managing Partners, Mr. Anumula Srujan & Mr. Chilukamarri Ravi VS Arepally Jeevan Rao], [N. A. Siddiqui VS State Of A. P. ], [Satyanarayan VS Boddu Veeraswamy].
"Punishment / penalties for misvaluation" - The primary remedies are procedural: directing payment of deficit, remanding to proper court, or rejecting plaints; explicit statutory punishment for misvaluation is not clearly codified in S.26, but misvaluation can trigger dismissal or costs and potential abuse of process considerations in some decisions , [SUBRAO RANBA RAVALU KEDARI VS KALLAPPA NANA KADAPURE].
"Precautionary takeaway" - When handling Section 26(c) injunction suits, treat relief value as primary for court-fee purposes, ensure alignment with jurisdictional values per Section 50/8, and consult local rule variants (Karnataka/Maharashtra/Delhi rules) that may permit distinct valuations for jurisdiction; review for Hyderabad/Telangana post-reorganisation implications if filing in Telangana vs Andhra zones [Mosali Narayana Reddy VS Pothagani Bojjanna], [WIDRAMAC SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS J. E. C. CABMAC PRIVATE LIMITED. , NEW DELHI], [Manoj Khandelwal VS Delight Ventures and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ].
"Scope of punishment for non-compliance" - The Act does not explicitly prescribe a punishment clause for non-compliance; the consequences typically include adjusting the court-fee, remanding, or rejecting plaints under Order VII Rule 11, or appellate remedies; practitioners should monitor evolving jurisprudence on penalties and sanctions for misvaluation , [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University].
"Key references (illustrative)" -
Supreme Court Sathappa Chettiar lineage clarifying court-fee vs jurisdiction valuations for injunction suits [Victoria VS Yesuraj Kumar].
"Practical guidance" - For drafting plaints in injunction suits in Telangana/Andhra, ensure:
Be prepared for possible remand or revision where the court questions valuation alignment.
"Cited sources" -
Note: The above synthesis draws directly on the provided source summaries. Where a point lacked a supported source in the given set, it has been omitted.
(1) In a suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaration, with or without consequential relief, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who has ceased to be a 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.
(2) Where the property has no market value, value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the amount stated 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.
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.
In a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on three-fourths of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
In a suit relating to an easement by the dominant or the servant owner, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court, whichever is higher:
Provided that, where compensation is claimed in addition to the relief relating to such easement, fee shall be paid on the amount claimed as compensation in addition to the fee payable on the relief relating to the easement.
(1) In a suit to recover the money due on a mortgage, whether the sale of the mortgaged property is prayed for or not, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
(2) If the holder of a prior mortgage or charge impleaded as a defendant in such a suit prays in his written statement for the determination of the amount due on his mortgage or charge and for a direction in the decree for the payment of such amount to him, fee shall be payable on the written statement computed on the amount claimed:
Provided mat, where the holder of the prior 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
(1) In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount 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.
(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.
(4) Whether or not a decree is passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the fee payable under either of the said sub-sections shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of
(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 value 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 towards the plaintiff's share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee 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 in favour of a defendant, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partn
(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 movable property, or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property included in 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--
(1) In a suit for the administration of an estate, fee shall be levied on the plaint at the rates specified in Section 47.
(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 or 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 such share or part of such assets is paid.
(3) No payment shall be made and 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
(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for 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--
(a) 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;
(b) if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or of the 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
(1) In a suit to set aside an attachment by a Civil or Revenue Court of any movable or immovable property 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 47.
Explanation :-- For the purpose of this section, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall be deemed to be a Civil Court.
In a suit for specific performance, 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 penalty 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 movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property sought to be taken in exchange;
(e) in other cases, where
In the following suits between landlord and tenant namely :--
(a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease or for acceptance of patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(b) for the enhancement of rent;
© for the delivery by a landlord of a lease or for obtaining a patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(d) for the recovery of possession of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord;
(e) for establishing or challenging 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.
The Telangana Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, governs the fees applicable to various types of suits in the state of Telangana. Section 40 specifically addresses the court fees applicable to suits between landlords and tenants, establishing a framework for the valuation of such suits.
Section 40 stipulates that the fee for suits between landlords and tenants shall be levied based on the amount of rent for the immovable property in question, specifically the rent payable for the year preceding the date of filing the suit.
The scope of Section 40 is limited to landlord-tenant disputes, providing a clear mechanism for determining court fees based on rental amounts. This ensures that the fees are proportionate to the economic realities of the property involved.
The section does not explicitly outline any punitive measures for non-compliance or failure to pay the requisite fees. However, general provisions under the Act may apply.
(1) In a suit for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits therefrom, fee shall, in respect of mesne profits, be computed on the amount claimed as mesne profits. If the profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the profits as claimed, 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 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 accrued due till the date of such decree is paid.
(3)
In a suit under Section 14 of the 1[Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (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 is higher.
________________________
1. Substituted for the original short title by the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Laws (Amendment of Short Titles) Act, 1961 (Act No. IX of 1961).
In a suit to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of proprietors of revenue-paying estates, the fee payable shall be fifteen rupees.
In a suit for relief under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (Central Act XX of 1863), or 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.
(1) In an interpleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at rates specified in Section 47.
(2) Where issues are framed regarding contentions of the claimants, fee shall be computed on the amount of the debt or the money or market value of the movable property, or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property, which forms the subject matter of the suit. In 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 the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property to which the sui
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.
In suits not otherwise provided for, fee shall be payable at the following rates :--
When the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute--
(i) is less than Rs. 3,000 Rupees fifty
(ii) is not less than Rs. 3,000 but does not exceed Rs. 5,000 Rupees one hundred
(iii) exceeds Rs. 5,000 but does not exceed Rs. 10,000 Rupees two hundred
(iv) exceeds Rs. 10,000 Rupees three hundred
The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.
The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee 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.
Explanation I :-- 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.
Explanation II :-- Costs shall not be deemed to form part of the subject-matter of the appeal except where su
(1) If no specific provision is made in this Act or any other law regarding the value of any suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, 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 of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value the amount stated in the plaint.
(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) such objection was taken in the court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed or in the 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 undervalued, and that the overvaluation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the dispos
(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 forth in Part I 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 portion of the estate, the aggregate value of which is the highest is situated.
(1) The fee chargeable for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be calculated at the rate or rates specified in Article 6 of Schedule I--
(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 application:
Provided that no fee shall be leviable under this chapter on any property held in trust not beneficially or with general power to confer a beneficial interest.
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
(1) The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of the reference to the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 52; but the court shall not grant probate or letters of administration unless it is satisfied that the fee chargeable under this Act has been paid on the basis of the net value of the estate as furnished in the valuation accompanying the application or in the amended valuation filed under sub-section (3) of Section 56.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the court may, without the payment of the proper fee, grant probate or letters of administration 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 as may be fixed by the court.
(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 for such grant 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.
(1) The Collector to whom a copy of the application and of the valuation has been sent under sub-section (2) of Section 52, 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, and 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 estimate
(1) The court shall, when moved by the Collector under sub-section (5) of Section 56, 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 purposes of any such inquiry the court, or any court or officer subordinate to it authorised 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.
&nb
(1) Where insufficient fee has been paid on any probate or letters of administration on account of any mistake or of want of knowledge 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 set forth in Part II of Schedule III and pays within six months of the discovery of the mistake or of any effects not known at the time to have belonged to the deceased, the difference between the fee which ought to have been paid in the first instance on such probate or letters and the fee actually paid, the Collector shall, if satisfied that insufficient fee was paid in the first instance on account of a mistake and without any intention to defraud or to delay the payment of the proper fee, cause the probate or letters to be duly stamped.
(2) If, in a, case fallin
Where insufficient fee has been paid in the first instance on letters of administration, the Collector shall not cause the same to be duly stamped in the manner aforesaid unless the administrator has given such security to the court granting the letters of administration as ought by law to have been given on the granting thereof in case the full value of the estate of the deceased had then been ascertained.
(1) If, at any time after the grant of the probate or letters of administration of an estate, it is discovered that fee has been paid in excess of what 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 sub-section (2) of Section 52. The application shall be accompanied by an amended valuation in the Form set forth in Part II of Schedule 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<
Any fee found to be payable by an applicant for probate or letters of administration or by an executor or administrator, or any costs under sub-section (4) of Section 57 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 arrear of land revenue.
The powers and duties of the Collector under this Chapter shall be subject to the control of the Board of Revenue.
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its re-presentation or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is insufficient and the deficit fee is not paid within the time allowed by the court, or the delay in payment of the deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the court may, in its discretion, direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant, of the fee, either in whole or in part, paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which was 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.
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal 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 to the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal; and, if the remand is on second appeal, also 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 of fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal if the remand is in Second Appeal, and of the full amou
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 rehearing, the court reverses or modifies its former decision on that ground, it shall direct 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 Art. 11 (g) and (u) of Schedule II.
The fee paid By mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refunded.
Legal Comments
"Section 66" - Refund of Court Fee limited to mistakes or inadvertence - [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University]
"Wrong forum filing" - Refund permitted when plaint filed in wrong forum; Court may refund to enable filing in correct forum - [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University]
"Broad scope of refund authority" - Section 151 CPC can facilitate refunds/transfer of court fees in appropriate circumstances - [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University]
"Conscious choice of forum" - Mere voluntary selection of a forum does not bar refund under Section 66 where misfiling or forum misalignment occurred - [Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd VS Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University]
"Insoluble inconsistency with other Acts" - Section 66 interacts with other state Court Fees Acts; refunds governed by each Act's text and interpretations (e.g., Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu precedents cited) - [01100074839], [Syndicate Bank VS Cantreads Private Limited ], [Zakariyas VS Johny]
"Injunction valuation clarity" - Section 26(c) AP/Telangana Act: court fee on relief not necessarily tied to market value; not to punish plaintiff for strategic relief framing - [K. Subramanya Naidu, K. Kuppanaidu VS Adilakshmiammal Param Subhadramma]
"Jurisdiction vs. court-fee parity" - Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act requires valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction to align; but rules may permit separate valuations in some jurisdictions; Delhi and Lahore High Court rules illustrate applicability - [WIDRAMAC SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS J. E. C. CABMAC PRIVATE LIMITED. , NEW DELHI]
"Refunds on withdrawal or settlement" - Karnataka/Madras/Tamil Nadu frameworks permit partial refunds when appeals/settlements withdraw; Section 66 interpreted broadly to foster access to justice - [Photo Speed Company, Bangalore VS C. H. Somashekar], [S. R. No. 17754 of 1957. Mohan (minor) VS R. Balaram], [Polyene General Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its Managing Director M. Narayan, Guindy VS Great Western Industries Limited, Represented by its Director M. Narayanan, Chennai], [M. Ramachandran and others. VS State of Madras represented by the Collector of Coimbatore], [Saradambal VS Seethalakshmi]
"Detenues and exemptions" - Section 67(10) AP/Telangana Act exempts court fees for detenues; courts may waive other procedural requirements for detained petitioners - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [00200052061], [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ]
"Out-of-court settlements and refunds" - Post-settlement refunds of court fees on withdrawal/settlement are supported in various judgments; Section 66 refunds reflect equity and efficiency goals - [Gaddam Jithendra Kumar vs Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy], [Narapareddy Raghunatha Reddy vs Kukati Sreenath Reddy]
"Applicability across states" - Several cited cases show inter-state considerations: Hyderabad Act applicable to Telangana area post-reorganization; refunds and valuations reflect local Act language (AP/ Telangana) - [Bh. Satyanarayanamurti VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench], [Bh. Satyanarayanamurthi VS Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench]
"Procedure for upset price/auction notices" - Order 21 Rule 66 amendments clarify court need not fix an upset price; must state decree-holder and judgment-debtor valuations; court may guide sale start with higher valuation if no fixed upset price - [V. A. S. Yellappa Naidu VS G. Venugopal Naidu]
"Injunction/Relief valuation mechanics" - For injunction relief, not all reliefs require market-value-based fees; courts may allow plaintiff to value relief reasonably under Section 26(c) and related provisions - [K. Subramanya Naidu, K. Kuppanaidu VS Adilakshmiammal Param Subhadramma], [Rajdhar Buwa VS Umakant Bhimrao]
"Credit for prior fees in appeals/decrees" - Proviso to Section 49 AP Act; crediting fees paid in appeals against preliminary decrees recognized in subsequent final decrees - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao VS State]
"Section 11(1)(b) and Section 33(1) interplay" - Courts may require amendments to valuation under Sections 32/33 where necessary; court should not unduly penalize litigants for valuation disputes - [Satyanarayan VS Boddu Veeraswamy], [Land acquisition officer, (Revenue Dlvis-onal Officer) Tenali VS Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tatisildar, Land Acquisition, Visakbapatnam. Revenue Division, Visakbapatnam]
"Valuation disputes and jurisdiction" - Full Bench precedents (AP) hold relief-value governs jurisdiction; valuation for court-fee follows relief-value; proper to remand or adjust as necessary to preserve jurisdictional integrity - [Y. VENKATA SESHA REDDY VS CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA], [Polyene General Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Represented by its Managing Director M. Narayan, Guindy VS Great Western Industries Limited, Represented by its Director M. Narayanan, Chennai], [GAYATHRI VS INDIRA RAJASHEKAR]
"Refund limits and proportionality" - Kerala/Karnataka line: refunds may be partial (e.g., 50% after rejection/delay) under S.66(2) or equivalents; proportional refunds depend on stage and reason for dismissal - [Zakariyas VS Johny], [ABDUL HALEEM VS KALIQUE AHMED], [GAYATHRI VS INDIRA RAJASHEKAR]
"Exemption and waivers in special circumstances" - Courts may grant fee exemptions or waivers (e.g., detenues, procedural waivers) to ensure access to justice; Section 67(10) interpreted broadly - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [00200052061], [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ]
"Retroactivity concerns" - Some decisions discuss whether fee provisions have retroactive effect on writ petitions; courts generally apply Act provisions to petitions arising after enactment, not to pre-existing proceedings - [In re Abdul Gaffoor VS . ]
"Practice pointers for practitioners" - Always verify whether court-fee is ad valorem or fixed for relief; ensure valuation aligns with relief sought and jurisdictional requirements; consider possible refund under Section 66 when withdrawing or settling - [N. V. Bhaskara Rao, etc. VS . ], [P. Thiruvengada Mudaliar By Partner, P. Nagarathna Mudaliar VS Syndicate Bank]
"Punishment/punitive consequences" - No explicit punishment provision under Section 66 for under- or over-valuation; focus is refundability and proper computation; punitive penalties arise only via other CPC/Act provisions in separate contexts -
1[Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.]
________________
1. Inserted by the Act No. 22 of 2005, w.e.f. 16.08.2005
Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee :--
(i) memorandum of appearance filed by advocates or pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases;
(ii) 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;
(iii) application for supply of water belonging to Government for irrigation;
(iv) application for leave to extend cultivation or to relinquish land, when presented to an officer of land revenue by a person holding, under a
The State Government may, by notification in the 1[Andhra Pradesh Gazette], reduce or remit, in the whole or in any part of the territory of this State, all or any of the fees chargeable under this Act, and may, in like manner, cancel or vary such notification.
________________________
1. Substituted for the words "Andhra Gazette" by the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957.
All fees chargeable under this Act shall be collected in stamps.
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 1[Andhra Pradesh Gazette], from time to time, direct.
_______________________
1. Substituted for the words "Andhra Gazette" by the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957.
Where any document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act is amended merely for correcting a mistake and making it conform to the original intention of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh stamp.
(1) 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.
(2) The Officer appointed from time to time by the Court or the head of the office shall, on receiving any such document effect forthwith such cancellation by punching out the figure head so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be destroyed.
Where allowance is made in this Act for damaged or spoiled stamps, or where fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of Court, the Collector may, on the application of the person concerned, pay to him the amount of fee or where damaged or spoiled stamps are produced, he may, after satisfying himself about their genuineness, give in lieu thereof the same amount or value in stamps of the same or any other description, or if the applicant so desires, the same amount or value in money provided that in all cases where money is paid in cash, a deduction shall be made of 1[six naye paise for each rupee or fraction thereof]. No such deduction shall, however, be made where refund is claimed in respect of any fee paid in pursuance of an order of Court which has been varied or reversed in appeal.
_____________________
1
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.
(1) The High Court may make rules 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 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 execution of processes;
(c) the fixing by 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 English and in the local language or languages showing the fees pay
(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 persons 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 the exercise of their powers under Chapter VI;
(e) the supply of stamps to be used under this Act;
(f) the
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the 1[Andhra Pradesh 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 may be, after they are made, be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly for fifteen days, 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.
_______________________
1. Substituted for the words "Andhra Gazette" by the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957.
Until rules are framed under Sections 75, 76 and 77 and until notifications are issued under Section 68, 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 in force.
(1) The Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870), in its application to the State of Andhra and in relation to the fees and stamps other than 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 Andhra 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), and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887), be governed by the provisions of the said Acts and the rules made thereunder.
SCHEDULE-I
(See Section 19)
Ad-valorem Fees
| Article | (See Section 19)
| ||||
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
AI Assistant
