TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955
(1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, appoint. (Brought into force on 19.5.1955.] Received the assent of the President on the 13th May 1955 and published in Fort St. George Gazettte, dated 16th May 1955, Part IVB. Extra – ordinary page 121.
NOTES
Object of levying court fee was to secure revenue for the benefit of the State – Gavaranga Sanu v. Boto Krishna 19 MLJ 340 : 1 LR 32 Mad 305 : 4 IC 503 (FB)
The difference of court fee and tax is there is always an element of quid pro quo and the
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is a legislative framework that governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 1 of the Act outlines the short title, extent, and commencement of the Act, establishing its applicability and foundational purpose.
Section 1 states:1. This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.2. It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu.3. It shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
Section 1 serves as an introductory provision that sets the stage for the subsequent sections of the Act, which detail the specific rules regarding court fees and the valuation of various types of suits. It is crucial for establishing the jurisdictional reach of the Act.
Section 1 does not prescribe any punishments or penalties. The enforcement of the provisions related to court fees and suit valuations is typically managed through the judicial process rather than through punitive measures.
(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to –
(a) (Proceedings in the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras ( omitted ) by Act XLIII of 1979.
(b) documents presented or to be presented before an officer serving under the Central Government.
(2) Where any other law contains provisions relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such other law, the provisions of this Act relating to the levy of fee in respect of such proceedings shall apply subject to the said provisions of such other law.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –
(i) “Appeal” includes a cross-objection.
NOTES
There is no definition of appeal in C.P.C. any application by a party to an appellate court, asking it to set aside or revise a decision of subordinate court is an appeal Nagendra Nath Dey and another V.Suresh Chandra Dey and others, AIR 1932 PC 165 : 68 MLJ 329 : 36 LW 7 : 59 IA 283 : 1932 MWN 817 : 1 LR 60 Cal 1
Judicial examination of the decision of the higher court of the decision of an inferior court is appeal Laxmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. AIR 1968 SC 488 : 1968 (2) SCJ 1 : 1968 1 SCR 505 : 1968 (1) SCWR 433 : 21 STC 154.
(ii) “Court” means any Civil, Rev
No document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall –
(i) be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished by, any court including the High Court, or
(ii) be filed, exhibited or recorded in any public office, or be acted on or furnished by any public officer.
Unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act.
Provided that, whenever the filing or exhibition in a Criminal Court of a document in respect of which the proper fee has not been paid is in the opinion of the court necessary to prevent a failure of justice, nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to prohibit such filing or exhibition.
N
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 4 specifically addresses the mandatory requirement for the payment of court fees for documents filed in courts and public offices.
Section 4 mandates that no document chargeable with a fee under the Act shall be filed, exhibited, or recorded in any court or public office unless the requisite fee has been paid. This provision ensures that the administration of justice is not hindered by the non-payment of fees.
The scope of Section 4 is broad, encompassing all documents that require a fee under the Act. It emphasizes the importance of financial compliance in the judicial process, thereby facilitating the smooth functioning of courts.
While Section 4 itself does not prescribe specific penalties for non-compliance, failure to pay the requisite court fees can lead to the rejection of documents, delays in proceedings, or dismissal of suits.
When a document on which the whole or any part of the fee prescribed by this Act has not been paid is produced or has, through mistake or inadvertence, been received in any court or public office, the court or the head of the office may, in its or his discretion at any time, allow the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the fee or part therof, as the case maybe, within such time as may be fixed; and upon such payment, the document shall have the same force and effect as if the full fee had been paid in the first instance
NOTES
Document does not include promissory note. Under stamped promissory note is inadmissible and the defect cannot be cured – 1977 TLNJ 116.
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 5 specifically addresses the situation where a document is produced in court without the requisite court fee being paid.
Section 5 of the Act stipulates that if a document is presented in court on which the prescribed court fee has not been paid, the court may require the payment of the fee before proceeding with the matter.
The scope of Section 5 is limited to documents that are presented in court without the requisite fees. It ensures that the court can maintain its operations and that litigants comply with financial obligations before their cases are heard.
While Section 5 does not explicitly outline punitive measures, failure to comply with the fee requirement may result in the dismissal of the case or the court refusing to entertain the document.
(1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs.
Provided that, if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief.
(2) where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees liable on the reliefs.
NOTES
Definition of cause of action – In re Lakshminarayana Chettiar and another, AIR 1954 Mad 594 : 1954 1 MLJ 403 : 67 LW 123 : ILR 1954 MAD 389
Ancillary and alternative reliefs and payment of
(1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
NOTES
Definition of market value – Raja Gopala Naidu v. Ramasubramanya Aiyer, AIR 1923 MAD 19; 45 MLJ 274 ; 18 LW 326 ; ILR 46 MAD 782 ; 33 MLT 21 : 1923 MEN 550 : 74 IC 198 : 1988 I MLJ 88.
Manmath Nath Milter v. Secretary of State for India in council ILR 25 Cal 194 (PC)
(2) The market value of land in suits falling under Sections 25 (a) , 25 (b), 27 (a) , 29, 30, 37 (1), 37 (3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be deemed to be-
(a) where the land is ryotwari land – thirty times the survey assessment on the land ;
Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, primarily governs the determination of the market value of property for the purpose of assessing court fees in civil suits. Accurate valuation ensures proper jurisdiction and fee payment, which are crucial for the proper functioning of the judiciary and revenue collection.
Section 7 stipulates that the court shall determine the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint. It specifies that in suits where the fee depends on the market value, the valuation made by the plaintiff at the time of filing shall generally be accepted initially, subject to objections or disputes raised later. The section also prescribes specific methods for calculating the market value for different types of land, notably ryotwari land, which is deemed to be thirty times the survey assessment.
Section 7 applies broadly to all suits where the court fee depends on the valuation of immovable property, including suits for possession, partition, declaration of title, and injunctions related to property. It provides a framework for initial valuation and the process for contesting or correcting the valuation. It also influences jurisdiction, as the valuation affects the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
Section 7 itself does not prescribe any specific punishment for undervaluation or non-compliance. However, failure to pay the correct court fee, based on undervaluation, can lead to rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit, as per the provisions of the Court Fees Act and related judicial orders. Repeated undervaluation or deliberate suppression may attract penalties under procedural laws, including costs or contempt proceedings.
This commentary synthesizes judicial principles, statutory provisions, and case law to provide a comprehensive understanding of Section 7, emphasizing its importance in ensuring proper valuation, jurisdiction, and revenue collection.
A written statement pleading a set off or counter claim shall be chargeable with fee in the same manner as a plaint.
NOTES
Definition of set-off and counter claim _ Southern Alloy Foundries Pvt. Ltd. V. Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Limited., 1987 TLNJ 178;
Ad valorem Court fee has to be paid for counter claim or set-off (1) _Sitarama Iyer v. Ramanuja Madualiar, AIR 1933 Mad 203 : 142 IC 719; Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1935 Mad. 115 : 68 MLJ 23 : 41 LW 27 : 1935 MWN 24 : ILR 58 Mad. 115 : 68 MLJ 23: 41 LW 27 : 1935 MWN 24 : ILR 58 Mad. 338 : 154 IC 432;
Plea of adjustment or payment is not set off –defendant need not pay court fee for there_
A. Koyan and another v. Rajammal and another,
Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Section, a document falling within two or more descriptions in this Act shall, where the fees chargeable thereunder are different, be chargeable only with the highest of such fees:
Provided that, where one of such descriptions is special and another general, the fee chargeable shall be the fee appropriate to the special description.
NOTES
Document in question is instrument of partition as well as dissolution of partnership – liable to be charged to stamp duty as a partition which carries higher fee specialibus non derogant – The Secretary, Board of Revenue v. RM PL WRM Alagappa Chettiar and another _ AIR 1937 Mad. 308 : 45 LW 123 : 1937 1 MLJ 175 : 1937 MWN 379 : ILR 1937 Mad 553 : 169 IC 439;
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,
NOTES
Plaint should give the details as to how the annual revenue or rent is calculated, D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundaram, 1988 (11) LW 161.
Where, in a suit instituted in the High Court in which a fee is payable under this Act, any difference arises between the officer whose duty it is to see that proper fee is paid and any party as to the necessity of paying a fee or the amount thereof, the question shall be referred to the Taxing Officer who shall decide the same:
Provided that, if in the opinion of the Taxing Officer, the question is one of general importance, he may refer it to the Chief Justice of the High Court or such Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint, either generally or specially in this behalf.
Provided further that, when the case comes up for disposal before the court, the decision of the Taxing Officer may be reviewed by the court.
NOTES
Scope of old
(1) In every suit instituted in any court other that the High Court, the court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under Section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction in the manner specified in the succeeding Subsections.
(2) Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding Subsection, not later, plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of th
Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, deals with the procedure for determining the proper court fee payable on a suit, especially when a defendant raises an objection regarding valuation or court fee paid. It emphasizes that such objections are to be considered as preliminary issues, to be decided before the main trial on the merits, ensuring proper jurisdiction and valuation.
Section 12 provides that:- The court shall, before registering the suit, decide on the proper court fee payable based on the materials and allegations in the plaint.- A defendant may, by his written statement or before evidence is recorded, plead that the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is insufficient.- All questions arising from such pleas shall be heard and decided as preliminary issues before the trial on the merits.- If the court finds the valuation or fee insufficient, it shall direct amendments and payment of the deficit fee.- Once such a plea is raised, the court is bound to decide it, and the proceedings on the main issues are to be deferred until the valuation issue is resolved.
This comprehensive analysis underscores that Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, enforces strict procedural discipline to ensure proper valuation, jurisdiction, and collection of court fees, with mandatory preliminary consideration once objections are raised timely and bona fide.
Where a party becomes liable to pay additional fee by reason of an issue framed in the suit, the provisions of the last foregoing Section shall apply to the determination and levy of such additional fee subject to the modification that where the party liable does not pay such additional fee within the time allowed, the court shall strike off the issue and proceed to hear and decide the other issues in the case.
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 13 specifically addresses the obligation of parties to pay additional fees when new issues are framed during the course of a suit.
Section 13 mandates that if a party becomes liable to pay an additional fee due to the framing of new issues in a suit, they must do so within a stipulated time frame. Failure to comply may result in the striking out of the issues or the plaint itself.
The scope of Section 13 is limited to situations where new issues arise during the litigation process. It ensures that the court's resources are not wasted on issues that are not adequately funded through court fees.
While Section 13 does not prescribe a specific punishment, the consequence of failing to pay the additional fee is significant: the court may strike out the issues or the plaint, effectively terminating the party's claim.
A plaintiff who has been called upon to pay additional fee may relinquish a part of his claim and apply to have the plaint amended so that the fee paid would be adequate for the claim made in the plaint as amended. The court shall allow such application on such terms as it considers just and shall proceed to hear and decide the claim made in the plaint as amended, provided that the plaintiff shall not be permitted at any later stage of the suit to add to the claim the part so relinquished.
Where fee is payable under this Act on a written statement filed by a defendant, the provisions of Section 12 shall apply to the determination and levy of the fee payable on such written statement, the defendant concerned being regarded for the said purpose as the plaintiff and the plaintiff or the co-defendant or the third party against whom the claim is made being regarded as the defendant.
The provisions of Section 10 to 14 relating to the determination and levy of fee on plaints in suits shall apply mutatis mutandis to the determination and levy of fee in respect of a memorandum of appeal, cross objection or other proceeding in second appeal or under the Letters Patent.
The provisions of Section 10 to 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the determinations and levy of fee in respect of petitions, applications and other proceedings in court in the same way as they apply to the determination and levy of fee on plaints in suits.
(1) The High Court may depute officers to be designated Court-fee Examiners to inspect the records of subordinate courts with a view to examine the correctness of representation made to, and orders passed by court on question relating to valuation of subject-matter and sufficiency of fee in respect of proceedings in such courts.
(2) Questions raised in reports submitted by such Court fee Examiners and relating to any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in a court shall be heard and decided by such court; and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in hearing and deciding a question raised in any such report, it shall be lawful for the court to review an earlier decision given by the court on the same question.
For the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of a suit or other proceedings has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient the court may hold such inquiry as it considered proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the court.
In any inquiry relating to the fee payable on a plaint, written statement, petition, memorandum of appeal or other document, or to the valuation of the subject matter of the claim to which the plaint, written statement, petition, memorandum of appeal or other document relates, in so far as such valuation affects the fee payable, the court may, if it consider it just or necessary to do so, give notice to the State Government; and where such notice is given, the proceedings as respects the determination of the question or questions aforesaid, and the count’s decision on such question or questions shall, when it passes a decree or final order in such suit or proceeding, be deemed to form part of such decree or final order.
The fee payable under this Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II.
Inserted by Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1960. [ 21-A. Fee to be computed to the nearest multiple of five naye paise- In the determination and computation of the amount of fee payable under this Act, any fraction of five naye paise or less than two and a half naye paise shall be disregarded and any fraction of five naye paise equal to, or exceeding two and a hald naye paise shall by regarded as five naye paise
In a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
Added by Sec.4 and Schedule II of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965 [ Explanation – For the purpose of this section, the expression ‘ suit for money’ shall, in respect of the transferred territory also include suits for rent, pattom, michavaram, adukkuvathu, jenmikaram, or other dues of a like nature.]
NOTES
Difference of Sec. 22 and Sec.33
Kalidas Narasing v. Union of India and others- AIR 1959 Bom. 436 : 1 LR 1959 Bom. 537;
Prosannadev Raikat v. Purna Chandra Shaka and other – AIR 1934 Cal. 674.
&
Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the court fee payable in suits for money, including damages, compensation, arrears of maintenance, and other periodic sums. It provides the basis for calculating court fees depending on the amount claimed and the nature of the suit, ensuring proper valuation for jurisdiction and fee purposes.
Section 22 mandates that in suits for money (excluding certain specified types), the court fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. It also states that suits for possession of immovable property and for mesne profits, based on the same cause of action, shall be deemed to be based on a single cause of action for valuation purposes. The section further clarifies that suits seeking separate reliefs based on the same cause of action are chargeable with a fee on the aggregate amount, unless the reliefs arise out of the same transaction, in which case only the highest fee applies.
Section 22 applies broadly to all suits for monetary claims, including suits for damages, compensation, arrears of maintenance, and periodic sums. It also covers suits seeking multiple reliefs on the same cause of action, requiring valuation either on the total amount or on the highest relief, streamlining court fee assessments and jurisdictional determinations.
While Section 22 primarily deals with valuation and court fee calculation, improper valuation or underpayment can lead to the suit being rejected or the court invoking penalties under other provisions of law. Misstatement of the amount claimed or failure to pay the requisite fee may result in the suit being dismissed or returned for correction.
Note: The references are drawn from the provided sources, emphasizing the legal interpretation, scope, and application of Section 22 in various contexts.
In the suits hereinafter mentioned, fee shall be computed as follows:-
(a) in a suit for maintenance, on the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
(b) in a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sough to be enhanced or reduced;
(c) in a suit for annuities or other sums payable periodically, on five times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
Provided that, where the annuity is payable for less than five years, the fee shall be computed on the aggregate of the sums payable.
Provided further that, a suit for enhancement of maintenance shall be instituted in a court which will have jurisdiction to receive a suit for maintenance at the
(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed-
(a) Where the subject matter has a market value , on such value;
(b) where the subject matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.
(2) (a) In a suit for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document-
(i) where the plaint alleges denial of the plaintiff’s title to the money or the property secured by the document, or
(ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff’s title to the money or the property secured by the document;
In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 26-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
(c) where the prayer relates to the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right,
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 25 specifically addresses the valuation of suits for declaratory relief, which is crucial for determining the appropriate court fees to be paid by the plaintiffs.
Section 25 outlines the court fees applicable to suits for declaration, specifying different scenarios based on the nature of the relief sought. It categorizes the suits into four clauses (a to d), each with distinct fee computation methods.
The scope of Section 25 is broad, covering various types of declaratory suits, including those that do not fall under other specific provisions of the Act. It ensures that the court fees are proportionate to the relief sought and the value of the subject matter.
Section 25 does not prescribe specific punishments; however, failure to pay the appropriate court fees can lead to the rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit.
This commentary provides a comprehensive overview of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, highlighting its significance in the legal landscape of Tamil Nadu.
In a suit for a declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption, fee shall be payable at the following rates :-
(i) Ina District Munsif’s Court : Rupees fifty
(ii) In the City Civil Court Madras Or a Sub-Court or a District Court
Rupees on hundred if the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief is Rs. 10,000/- or less and rupees five hundred if it is above Rs. 10, 000/-
(ii) In the High Court Rupees five hundred.
Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, pertains to the valuation of suits involving specific types of claims, notably adoption suits and certain other categories. It establishes the basis for determining the court fee payable depending on the nature of the suit and the valuation of the subject matter. Proper understanding of this section is crucial for ensuring correct court fee payment and avoiding legal disputes related to valuation.
Section 26 prescribes the court fee payable in suits concerning specific matters such as adoption suits, suits relating to the validity or invalidity of an adoption, and other suits where the valuation influences the fee. It specifies the rates of fee based on the valuation of the suit’s subject matter, with particular provisions for suits involving declarations about adoption and related issues.
Section 26 applies specifically to suits related to adoptions and certain declaration suits. It guides the court and litigants on the applicable court fee based on the valuation of the suit’s subject matter. It also provides mechanisms for courts to examine and, if necessary, rectify the valuation, ensuring that the correct fee is paid before proceedings are initiated or continued.
While Section 26 itself does not prescribe explicit punishments, failure to pay the correct court fee or undervaluation can lead to:- Rejection or dismissal of the suit.- Rejection of plaint or return for revaluation.- Penalties or proceedings under related provisions for non-compliance or evasion.
In summary, Section 26 plays a vital role in the valuation process for suits concerning adoptions and declarations related thereto. Courts and litigants must adhere to prescribed valuation procedures, ensuring correct fee payment and avoiding legal penalties or suit rejection. Proper judicial interpretation and enforcement of this section uphold the integrity of the legal and fiscal system in Tamil Nadu.
In a suit for injunction –
(a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and
(i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or
(ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff’s title to the property,
Fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher.
(b) Where the prayer relates to the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is value in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is hi
In a suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaratory decree, whether with or without consequential relief in respect of it, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and an person who has ceased to be trustee, fee shall be computed on one-fifth of the market value of the property subject to a maximum fee of rupees two hundred or where the property has no market value, on rupees one thousand ;
Provided that, where the property does not have a market value, value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of court shall be such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
Explanation – For the purpose of this Section, property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or other religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be trust property and the manager of any su
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 the market value of the property or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher.
NOTES
Definition of market value
D.Pattammal v.K. Kalyanasundram - 1988 11 LW 161
Life interest of plaintiff in a portion of building –suit for recovery of possession which is in the unlawful occupation of defendant – plea of life interest claim alone to be value – rejected.
D. Pattammal v. K. Kalyanasundram (Ibid)
Suit for possession by licensee
Nidukonda Rudrammal and another v. Ghandu Ula Srisailam and another AIR 1954 MAD 200 : 1953 11
In a suit relating to an easement, whether by the dominant or the servient owner, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, which amount shall in no case be less than rupees three hundred.
Provided that, where compensation is claimed besides other relief relating to such easement, fee shall be paid on the amount claimed as compensation in addition to the fee payable on such other relief.
NOTES
Declaration suit that defendant has no easement and injunction valuation is under Sec. 7 (iv) (e) old Act, now Sec.31
Pappu Kannu Anni v. Thoppia Mudaliar and another – AIR 1952 Mad 41 : 1952 11 MLJ 108 : 65 LW 136;
Raja K.J.V. Naidu Petitioner – 1946 1 MLJ 61.
In a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption, fee shall be computed on the amount of the consideration for the sale which the pre-emptor seeks to avoid or on the market value, whichever is less.
NOTES
Determination of market value not under Sec. 7 but market value at the time of institution of property.
Narayan Nair and other v. A.P.M. Cheria Kathiri Kutti – 34 MLJ 397 : 45 IC 89
Mohamed Banu Begam v. Mst. Sultani and another – CAIR 1947 All. 107 ; ILR 1948 All.339;
Janasarchand v. Ramlal and another – AIR 1959 Punj. 254.
Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, specifically addresses the valuation and court fee payable in suits for preemption. It plays a crucial role in determining the basis on which court fees are calculated for such suits, thereby impacting the jurisdiction and admissibility of the suit.
Section 32 stipulates that in a suit to enforce a right of preemption, the court fee shall be computed on the amount of consideration for the sale which the pre-emptor seeks to enforce. This means that the valuation for court fee purposes is directly linked to the sale consideration involved in the transaction.
Note: The references are based on the provided sources, primarily the "India Code" and related legal summaries, as specific case law or detailed commentary was not available in the sources.
(1) In a suit to recover the money due on a mortgage, fee shall be computed on the amount claimed.
Explanation- It is immaterial that sale of the mortgaged property is not preyed for.
(2) Where, in such a suit the holder of a prior mortgage or charge is impleaded and he prays in his written statement that the amount due on his mortgage or charge be determined and that the decree contain a director for the payment of such amount to him, fee shall be payable on the written statement computed on the amount claimed.
Provided that, where the holder of the mortgage or charge has paid a fee in any other proceeding on the claim to which his written statement relates, credit shall be given for the fee paid by him in such other proceeding.
(3) Where, in such
(1) A suit by a landlord for recovery of possession of property transferred by way of kanam or kanam-kuzhi kanam shall be deemed to involve the reliefs of redemption and ejectment, and fee shall be levied in respect of each of the reliefs, that is to say, on the kanartham in respect of the relief of redemption and one year’s michavaram or rent in respect of the relief of ejectment.
(2) If in any such suit, arrears of michavaram or rent or damages or both are also sought to be recovered, fee shall be levied also on the amount of such arrears or damages or both;
Provided that, where the plaintiff seeks to set off the kanartham and the value of the improvements due by him to the defendant against arrears of michavaram or rent due to him, fee shall be levied only on the balance claimed; and if the amount ascertained to be due to him exceeds
(1) In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint.
(2) Where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained, is paid . If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends.
(3) Where in any such suit it is found that any amount is payable to the defendant, no decree shall be passed in his favour until he pays the fee due on the amount.
NOTES
&
(1) In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff’s share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff.
(2) If the value of the plaintiff’s share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the values as estimated in the plaint, no decree or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the plaintiff’s share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the feet that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid.
(3) No final decree shall be passed, no money shall be paid and no allotment of property shall be made favour of a d
(1) In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff’s share.
(2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates:
When the plaint is presented to
(i) A District Munsif’s Court Rupees thirty
(ii) the City Civil Court, Madras or a sub-Court or a District Court Rupees thirty if the value of plaintiff’s share is Rs. 5,000 or less Rupees one hundred if the value is Rs. 5,000 but be
The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, governs the payment of court fees and the valuation of suits in the state of Tamil Nadu. Section 37 specifically addresses the court fees applicable to partition suits, which are common in family law, particularly concerning joint family properties.
Section 37 outlines the court fees payable in partition suits based on the possession status of the plaintiff:1. Subsection (1) applies when the plaintiff has been excluded from possession of the property.2. Subsection (2) applies when the plaintiff is in joint possession of the property.3. Subsection (3) addresses the situation where a defendant claims partition and separate possession of their share after a preliminary decree has been passed.
The scope of Section 37 is limited to partition suits involving joint family properties or properties owned jointly. It provides a framework for determining the court fees based on the nature of possession, which is essential for ensuring that the correct fees are paid and that the court has jurisdiction.
While Section 37 does not explicitly outline punishments, failure to pay the correct court fees can lead to the rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit.
This commentary highlights the significance of Section 37 in the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and its implications for partition suits, emphasizing the need for accurate court fee payment and the legal principles governing joint possession.
In a suit for joint possession of joint family property owned jointly or in common by a plaintiff who has been excluded from possession, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff’s share.
NOTES
Suits for joint possession – Section applies – Substantive relief and not to consequential relief – (1961) 2 MLJ 481;
(1) In a suit for the administration of an estate, fee shall be levied on the plaint at the rates specified in section 50.
(2) Where any amount or share or part of the assets of the estate is found due to the plaintiff, and the fee computed on the amount or the market value of such share or part of the assets exceeds the fee paid on the plaint, no payment shall be made and no decree directing payment of money of confirming title to such share or part of the assets shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee computed on the amount or value of the property is paid.
(3) No payment shall be made, no decree directing payment of money or confirming title to any share or part of the assets of the estate shall be passed in favour of a defendant in a suit for administration, until the fee computed on the amount
(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be –
If the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed;
If a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
(2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split
Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, prescribes the manner in which court fees are to be computed in suits for the cancellation of decrees, documents, or other instruments that create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish rights or interests in immovable property or money. It plays a crucial role in determining the jurisdiction and valuation of suits involving the annulment of legal documents and decrees.
Section 40(1) states that in suits for the cancellation of a decree, or a document which creates, declares, assigns, limits, or extinguishes rights or interests in property or money, the court fee must be computed based on the value of the subject matter of the suit—namely, the amount or value of the property or the amount involved in the decree or document.
Section 40 itself does not prescribe penalties or punishments. However, failure to pay the correct court fee can lead to rejection of the plaint, or the suit may be dismissed or require revaluation and re-filing with proper fees, as per the procedural rules.
Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is a specialized provision for suits seeking the cancellation of decrees or documents affecting rights in immovable property or involving monetary interests. Its proper application hinges on the party status to the decree or document and the valuation based on the value of the property or amount involved. Courts have consistently held that misvaluation or improper invocation of Section 40 can lead to rejection or re-filing of suits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed valuation principles.
Note: The references are from the provided sources, formatted as per instructions.
(1) In a suit to set aside an attachment by a Civil or Revenue Court of any property , movable or immovable, or of any interest therein or of any interest in revenue, or to set aside an order passed on an application made to set aside the attachment, fee shall be computed on the amount for which the property was attached or on one-fourth of the market value of the property attached, whichever is less.
(2) In a suit to set aside any other summary decision or order of a Civil or Revenue Court, if the subject matter of the Suit has a market value, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of such value, and in other cases, fee shall be payable at the rates specified in Section 50.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section, the Registrar of Co-operative societies shall be deemed to be a civil court.
In a suit for specific performance, whether with or without possession, fee shall be payable-
(a) in the case of a contract of sale, computed on the amount of the consideration ;
(b) in the case of a contract of mortgage, computed on the amount agreed to be secured by the mortgage;
(c ) in the case of a contract of lease, computed on the aggregate amount of the fine or premium, if any, and of the average of the annual rent agreed to be paid;
(d) in the case of a contract of exchange, computed on the amount of the consideration, or as the case may be, on the market value of the property sought to be got in exchange;
(e) in the other cases, where the consideration for the promise sought to be enforced has
(1) In the following suits between landlord and tenant, namely;-
(a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of lease or for acceptance of patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(b) for enhancement of rent;
Inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1965(bb) in respect of the transferred territory, for abatement of rent, where it is not coupled with any other relief;
(c ) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease or for obtaining a patta in exchange for a muchilika;
(d) for recovering occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord;
(e) for establishing or disproving a right of occupancy;
(1) In a suit for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits, fee shall in respect of mesne profits be computed, where the amount is stated approximately and sued for, on such amount. If the profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the profits as approximately estimated and sued for no decree shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid.
(2) Where a decree directs an enquiry as to the mesne profits which have accrued on the property, whether prior or subsequent to the institution of the suit, no final decree shall be passed till the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits accrued due till the date of such decree is paid.
In a suit under section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (tamil nadu act VIII of 1923), fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property affected by the determination of the boundary or on rupees three hundred, whichever in higher.
In a suit to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of properties or revenue paying estate, the fee payable shall be fifteen rupees.
NOTES
Suit by a divided cosharer - Estate – Registering his name – AIR 1927 MAD 568
In a suit for relief under section 14 of the religious endowments act, 1863 (central act xx of 1863),under section 91 or section 92 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (central act v of 1908), the fee payable shall be fifty rupees.
(1) In an inter pleader suit, fee shall be payable on the plaint at the rates specified in section 50.
(2) where issues are framed as between the claimants fee shall be payable computed on the amount of the debt or the money or the market value of other property, movable or immovable, which forms the subject matter of the suit. It levying such fee, credit shall be given for the fee paid on the plaint and the balance of the fee shall be paid in equal shares by the claimants who claim the debt or the sum of money or the property adversely to each other.
(3) Value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the amount of the debt, or the sum of money or the market value of other property to which the suit relates.
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:
(i) in a Revenue court Rupees fifteen
(ii) In a District Munsif’s Court Rupees thirty
(iii) In the City Civil Court, Madras, or a sub-court of a district court. Rupees thirty, if the values of the subject-matter is Rs. 5,000 or less; rupees one hundred if the value is above Rs. 5,000 but below Rs. 10,000 and rupees two hundred if the value is Rs. 10,000 and above.
(iv) In the High court Rupees three hundred
NOTES
Reversionars suit for declaration suit and for appointment of Receiver – Not a consequential relief – old s 17-B1 ap
The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.
NOTES
Sec. 51 not a charging section – Advalorem court fee has to be paid as prescribed in the section Litigant must be charged in most favourable way – AIR 1932 CAL 346;
The forum and the value of the appeal are determined by the nature and value of the decree – 45 (MAD) 320
Power of court to grant higher compensation with the direction to pay the deficit court fee – 1985 (3 SCC) 737 – 1992 TLNJ 194;
Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable property act. – Appeal Sec. 51 applies – 1974 (2) MLJ 313 – Se
The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal.
Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the court of first instance or by the court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree.
Explanations –
(1) Whether the appeal is against the refusal of a relief or against the grant of the relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable on the relief in the court of first instance.
(2) Costs shall not be deemed to form part of the subject matter of the
In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same.
(2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value, or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value, such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint.
NOTES
The plaintiff cannot be allowed to under value the suit and evade the payment of proper court fee for the purpose of jurisdiction by omitting to ask for substantive relief – (1959) 1 MLJ 355;
Notional
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 99 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under – valuation of a suit or appeal, a court of first instance or lower appellate court which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate court, unless-
(a) the objection was taken in the court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded, or in lower appellate court in the memorandum of appeal to that court, or
(b) the appellate court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over-valued or under valued and that the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected th
(1) Every application for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set for in Part-1 of Schedule III.
(2) On receipt of such application, the court shall send a copy thereof and of the valuation to the collector of the district in which the estate is situated or if the estate is situated in more than one district to the Collector of the district in which the most valuable portion of the immovable property included in the estate is situated.
This section is similar to Section 19H (1) of the old Act.
(1) The fee chargeable for the grant of probate or letters of administration shall comprise – a fee at the rate or rates prescribed in Article 6 of Schedule I, computed
(a) where the application is made within one year of the date of death of the deceased , on the market value of the estate on such date, or
(b) where the application is made after the expiry of one year from such date, on the market value of the estate, on the date of the application.
Provided that property held in trust not beneficially or with general power to confer a beneficial interest shall not be liable to any fee under this Chapter.
Explanation – Any member of a joint Hindu Family governed by the mitakshara Law who applies for probate or letters of administration in respect
The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of the reference to the Collector under Section 55, Sub-section (5), but the court shall make no grant of probate or letters of administration until it is satisfied that a fee not less than that prescribed by this Act has been paid on the basis of the net value of the estate as furnished in the valuation accompanying the application, in the amended, valuation filed under Section 59, sub-section (3)
Provided that the court may grant probate or letters of administration notwithstanding that the prescribed fee has not been paid to the Administrator General in his official capacity on his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that the said fee will be paid within such time a may be fixed by the court.
NOTES
(1) Whenever a grant of probate or letters of administration has been made in respect of the whole of the property belonging to an estate, and the full fee payable under this Act in respect of the application for such grant has been paid thereon, no fee shall be payable when a like grant is made in respect of the whole or any part, of the same property belonging to the same estate.
(2) Whenever such grant has been made in respect of any property forming part of an estate, the amount of fee actually paid under this Act in respect thereof shall be deducted when a like grant is made in respect of the property belonging to the same estate identical with or including the property to which the former grant relates.
NOTES
Revocation of Letters of Administration – 16 Suth W.R. 253;
&nbs
(1) The Collector to whom a copy of the application of the valuation has been sent under section 55, sub-section (2), shall examine the same and may make or cause to be made by any officer subordinate to him, such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit, as to the correctness of the valuation or where a part only of the property is situated in his district, of the valuation of that part, may require the collector of any other district in which any part of the property is situated to furnish him with the correct valuation thereof.
(2) Any collector required under sub-section (1) to furnish the correct valuation of any property shall comply with the requisition after making or causing to be made by any officer subordinate to him such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit.
(3) If the collector is of opinion that the applicant has under –estimated the
(1) The court shall, when moved by the collector under section 59 sub-section (5), hold or cause to be held by any court or officer subordinate to it an inquiry as to the true value at which the estate of the deceased should have been estimated. The collector shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry.
(2) For the purpose of any such inquiry, the court or the subordinate court or the officer authorized by the court to hold the inquiry may examine the applicant on oath either in person or by commission, and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the estate, and where the inquiry has been entrusted to a subordinate court or officer, such court or officer shall return to the court the evidence taken and report the result of the inquiry and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceedings.
&nbs
(1) Where too low a fee has been paid on any probate or letters of administration in consequence of any mistake, or of its not being known at the time that some particular part of the estate belonged to the deceased, if any executor or administrator, acting under such probate or letters applies to the collector in the form of set forth in part II of schedule III and pays within six months after the discovery of the mistake or of any effects not known at the time to have belonged to the deceased, what is wanting to make up the fee which ought to have been paid at first on such probate or letters, the collector shall, if satisfied that a low fee was paid in the first instance in consequence of a mistake and without any intention of fraud or to delay the payment of the proper fee, cause the probate or letters to be duly stamped.
(2) If, in a case falling under sub-section (1) , the ex
In case of letters of administration on which too low a fee has been paid at first, the collector shall not cause the same to be duly stamped in the manner afore said until the administrator has given such security to the court by which the letters of administration have been granted as ought by law to have been given on the granting thereof in case the full value of the estate of the deceased had been then ascertained.
(1) If, at any time after the grant of the probate or letters of administration of an estate, it is discovered that a higher fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, the executor or administrator, as the case may be, may apply for a refund to the collector to whom a copy of the valuation of the estate was sent under section 55, sub-section (2). The application shall be accompanied by an amended valuation in the form set forth in Part II of scheduled III together with the probate or letters of administration upon which a refund is sought.
(2) If the collector is satisfied that the amended valuation is correct, he shall –
(i) endorse a certificate on the stamped probate or letters of administration to the effect that so much of the fee represented by the stamp or stamps used has been refunded, and
&
Any excess fee found to be payable by an applicant for probate or letters of administration or by an executor or administrator, or any costs under section 60, sub-section (4) , or any penalty or forfeiture payable by any such executor or administrator may, on the certificate of the Board of Revenue, be recovered from the executor or administrator as if it were an arrears of land revenue.
NOTES
S-64; Recovery of deficit court fee – power – (1953) 2 MLJ 719
The powers and duties of the collector under this chapter shall be subject to the control of the board of revenue.
Board of revenue superseded by Tamil Nadu act 36 of 1980 – Section 10.
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its representation, or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is deficient and the deficiency is not made good within the time allowed by law or granted by the court, or the delay in payment of the deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or the memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the court shall direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant, of the fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected.
(2) Where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation, one-half of the fee shall be refunded.
NOTES
Dismissal of application for condone delay in filing appeal - Half the court fee to
(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower court, the court making the order or remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court, and if the remand is in Letters Patent Appeal, also on the memorandum of second appeal and memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court.
(2) Where an appeal is remanded in second appeal or Letters Patent Appeal for a fresh decision by the lower appellate court, the High Court remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount fee paid on the memorandum of Second Appeal if the remand is in second appeal, and of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal and the memor
Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on the rehearing the court reverses or modifies its former decision on that ground, it shall direct the refund to the applicant of so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee payable on any other application to such court under Article 11 (g) and (u) of Schedule II.
Whenever any suit is dismissed as settled out of court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, half the amount of all fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid.
Explanation – The expression merits of the claim’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 12.
NOTES
S. 69 does not apply to appeal – AIR 1934 MAD 566.
“Recorded” – meaning of – AIR MAD 180;
Deletion of alternative claim – Not a ground for refund – AIR 1955 SC 600;
Settled out of court – earlier dismissal for default or exparte decree not relevant – Re
The fee paid by mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refunded.
NOTES
“ In advertence” is the result of the inattention and want of care on the part of the petitioner- 1980 TLNJ 398;
Adoption of erroneous procedure resulting in mistake – Refund of court fee – (1962) 1 MLJ 331;
Deliberate action – Not entitled to refund – 79 LW 392;
Where the final decree in a partition suit has been engrossed on non-judicial stamps furnished by the parties, the court shall order the refund to the parties of so much of the valued fee paid by them as is equal to the value of the non-judicial stamps furnished by them.
Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee –
(i) Mukhtarnama, Vakalatnama or other written authority to institute or defend a suit when executed by a member of any of the Armed Forces of the Union not in civil employment;
(ii) memorandum of appearance filed by advocates or pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases;
(iii) Plaints and other documents in suits filed in village courts;
(iv) Plaints in suits before Collectors under Tamil Nadu Regulation XII of 1816;
(v) application or petition to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land revenue, or to the Board of Revenue relating to matters connected with the assess
The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, reduce or remit, in the whole or in any part of the fees chargeable under this Act, and may, in like manner, cancel or vary such notification.
NOTES
Remission of fee – power of Government – 1 LR 1957 MAD 821;
Allfees chargeable under this Act shall be collected by stamps.
NOTES
Court fee cannot be in the form of money – 71 MLJ 804;
The stamps used to denote any fee chargeable under this Act shall be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive, as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, from time to time, direct.
NOTES
Extent of power of Government – 19 Bom 145;
Stamp purchased in the particular state alone whether valid – (1949) 2 MLJ 159; 21 MLJ 533 – See also AIR 1960 Bom. 96 ; (1961) 2 And WR 262; - AIR 1959 Punjab 629; 1956 HP 38 – AIR 1969 Delhi 130;
Where any document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act is amended in order merely to correct a mistake and to make it conform to the original intention of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh stamp.
No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any court or office until the stamp has been cancelled.
Such officer as the court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figurehead so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.
NOTES
Cancellation of court fee – 35 MAD 567
(1) Where allowance is made in this Act for damaged or spoiled stamps, the Collector may, on the application of the person concerned and on the production of the damaged or spoiled stamps after satisfying himself about the genuineness of such stamps, given in lieu thereof the same amount or value in stamps of the same or any other description, or if he applicant so desires, the same amount or the value in money;
Provided that in all cases where money is paid in cash, a deduction shall be made of five paise for each or fraction thereof, so however that the amount of such deduction shall not exceed one hundred rupees.
(2) Where fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of court, such refund shall be given effect to in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
&nb
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 payable for serving and executing processes issued by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction and by the Civil and Criminal Courts subordinate thereto;
(b) the remuneration of persons employed by the Courts mentioned in clause(a) in the service or exemption of processes;
(c ) the fixing the District and Sessions Judges and District Magistrates of the number of process-servers necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued from their respective courts and the courts subordinate thereto;
(d) the display in each court of a table in the English and in the local language or languages showing the fees pa
(1) the Board of Revenue may, with the previous sanction of the State Government , make rules consistent with this Act to provide for or regulate all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the board of revenue and by the revenue courts;
(b) the remuneration of the persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes;
(c ) the fixing by collectors of the number of persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes;
(d) the guidance of collectors in exercise of their powers under Chapter VI;
(e) the supply of stamps to be used under this Act;
&nb
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, make rules to carry out generally the purposes of this Act.
(2) All notifications and rules made under this Section shall, as soon as possible, after they are made, be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly for one month, and shall be subject to such modification whether by way of repeal or amendment as the Legislative Assembly may make during the session in which they are so laid.
Until rules are framed under sections 80,81 and 82 and until notifications are issued under section 73, the rules and notifications now in force in respect of matters referred to in those sections, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, continue.
In the Madras Civil Court Act, 1873 (Central Act III of 1873), section 14 shall be omitted.
The Presidency magistrates (Court fees) Act, 1877 (Central Act IV of 1877) in so far as it applies to the State of Tamil Nadu, is hereby repealed.
In the Madras City Civil Courts Act, 1892, (Central Act VII of 1892), Section 9 and 13 shall be omitted.
(1) The court fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870), in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu and in relation to the fees and stamps relating to documents presented or to be presented before an officer serving under the Central Government and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887) in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu are hereby repealed.
(2) All suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise arising therefrom, whether instituted before or after such commencement shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the court fees act, 1870 (Central act VII of 1870), be governed by the provisions of the said acts and the rules made there under.
NOTES
“Proceedings” – meaning of – (1956) 1 MLJ 63; (1960) 2 MLJ 207;
In respect of the transferred territory, all suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Tamil Nadu (transferred territory) Extension of laws act, 1965, and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise, arising therefrom, whether instituted before or after such commencement, shall notwithstanding the repeal of the corresponding law by the said act, be governed by the provisions of the said corresponding law and the rules made thereunder.
Explanation – In this section, the expression “corresponding law” shall mean the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 (Travancore – Cochin Act II of 1125 and the Travancore, cochin suits valuation act, 1125 (Travancore, cochin act IV of 1125).
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
