Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The summary nature of Section 6 suits allows for immediate relief, and appeals or revisions are available against decrees ["Gurmeet Singh VS Manjeet Kaur - Delhi"].
Court Fee Payable in Suit under Sec 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act:
For suits involving recovery of immovable property under Section 6, courts typically direct the plaintiff to pay court fees on the relief of possession as per Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ["Gurucharan Singh VS Manoj Kumar - Uttarakhand"].
Additional considerations:
Analysis and Conclusion:In suits filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court fee payable is primarily determined by the relief sought—namely, possession or recovery of immovable property—and is calculated based on the market value of the property or the relief of possession as per relevant court fee provisions, such as Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The fee is not to be assessed solely on the plaintiff’s valuation or statement but on the relief's value, ensuring proper valuation and fee payment for the suit to proceed.
If you've been illegally dispossessed from your property, filing a suit under Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can provide a swift remedy to regain possession. But one critical aspect that often trips up plaintiffs is determining the correct court fee payable. The question arises: Suit under Sec 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act Filed against Unauthorized Dispossession what is the Court Fee Payable?
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, key precedents, and practical considerations for calculating court fees in such cases. Note that this is general information based on established case law and statutes—court fees can vary by jurisdiction and specific facts. Always consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
Suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are summary proceedings designed for quick restoration of possession to someone dispossessed without consent and not in due course of law, provided the suit is filed within six months of dispossession. Section 5 complements this by allowing recovery of specific immovable property. Importantly, these suits focus on possession, not title—courts avoid delving into ownership disputes. N. K. Reghvaran VS N. K. Murali - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 442
The relief under Section 6 is a summary remedy for illegal dispossession, focusing on possession rather than title. N. K. Reghvaran VS N. K. Murali - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 442
This summary nature influences court fee valuation, which hinges on the relief sought rather than complex title adjudication.
Court fees for these suits are governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 (or state equivalents like the West Bengal or Karnataka Court Fees Acts). The fee is typically ad valorem (based on value) or fixed, depending on the relief:
The court fee is to be paid based on the value of the relief sought, which often relates to the value of the property or the amount involved in the claim. N. K. Reghvaran VS N. K. Murali - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 442
If the suit also includes a prayer for declaration or other reliefs, the court fee may need to be paid on the value of those reliefs. Abdul Noushad VS Helen - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1421
In licensee cases, fees might include annual license fee preceding the suit. Subimal Kundu VS J. R. Agarwal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1342
The Supreme Court has clarified: Suits under Section 6 are summary proceedings focused on possession, and the court fee is accordingly calculated based on the relief or property value. N. K. Reghvaran VS N. K. Murali - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 442
In a West Bengal case, for possession from a trespasser (initially lessee turned tenant at sufferance), valuation under Section 7(vi)(a) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act was upheld as plaint-based, with no objective standard. The court can demand deficit fees post-mesne profits determination. Subimal Kundu VS J. R. Agarwal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1342
Another ruling stressed: The valuation of a suit property in a suit for recovery of possession from a trespasser should be based on the relief sought in the plaint. Subimal Kundu VS J. R. Agarwal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1342
The learned trial Judge... came to the conclusion that the plaintiff should pay a total Court fee of Rs. 1160.00... demanding additional Court fees from the plaintiff is set aside. FAKIRCHAND MAKANDAS, FIRM VS JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA - 1969 Supreme(Guj) 68
Suits must prove dispossession within six months without due process. Hajra VS Yakoob - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1501 Section 6 (2) of the Act... fixes a limitation that no suit under this Section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the date of possession. Hajra VS Yakoob - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1501
Even if filed timely, if not purely under Section 6 (e.g., includes injunction), ad valorem fees apply under Court Fees Act Section 7. Hajra VS Yakoob - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1501
Trial courts must record findings on possession and illegal dispossession; failure leads to decree set-aside. Mahendra Dutta VS Dimbeswar Pegu - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 804NITYANANDA DUTTA VS DIMBESWAR PEGU - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 30
In employment-allotted quarters cases, post-termination dispossession without due process warrants restoration, with suits within limitation (excluding holidays). EVARISTO s/o MANUEL SEQUEIRA VS PARISH PRIEST - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 270
To avoid pitfalls:- Clearly draft plaint: Specify reliefs (possession only vs. + declaration/damages). Abdul Noushad VS Helen - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1421- Value appropriately: Use market value or plaint-estimated amount; expect court scrutiny.- Pay on multiple reliefs: Separate valuations if combined prayers.- Jurisdiction check: Fees impact court jurisdiction.
Clearly specify the relief sought in the plaint—whether solely for recovery of possession or also including declaration or damages. (Recommendations from analysis)
For licensees/tenants, include arrears or monthly deposits under Order XV-A CPC, even if not explicitly claimed. PTB Hospitality LLP VS Jayanti Danabhai Patel - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1067 Defendants must deposit license fees during the pendency of the suit. PTB Hospitality LLP VS Jayanti Danabhai Patel - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1067
In conclusion, for a suit under Sections 5 and 6 against unauthorized dispossession, pay fees based on relief—property value or claimed amount—escalating with added prayers like declaration. Precision in pleadings ensures smooth proceedings. Seek professional legal counsel to navigate your case effectively.
This post references judgments like N. K. Reghvaran VS N. K. Murali - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 442, Abdul Noushad VS Helen - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1421, Sulaikha VS Raghavan - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 1483, and others for illustrative purposes. Laws evolve; verify current applicability.
#SpecificReliefAct #CourtFee #PossessionSuit
No doubt, Section 29 deals with suit filed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. ... Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would vehemently contend that the suit has been filed under Section 6 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 which is a special enactment and special remedy for illegal dispossession is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific#HL....
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act entails that suit by person dispossessed of immovable property:- 1. ... The petitioner filed a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a flat. The case made out by the petitioner in the plaint of the said suit in a nutshell runs thus. 3. ... In the case in hand the plaintiff has not filed#HL_E....
Learned court below while passing the order impugned totally failed to consider the mandate of the Court Fee Act, 1870, that the court fee should be determined on the basis of the relief sought and not on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff, which is after institution of the suit. ... The court fee is payable on the basis of the pleadings of the plaint. How much the court....
There may be a licence fee payable by the licensee to the lessor and in that case ad valorem Court fee would be required to be paid on the amount of licence fee, which is payable for the whole year preceding the institution of the suit. ... In a suit for recovery of immovable property from a licensee upon termination of license, the license fee payable for a year before the date of presenting the plaint or the lice....
Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking possession of the suit property being first floor with roof rights measuring 95 sq. yds. i.e. (79.43 sq. meters) and roof rights of third floor area measuring 50 sq. yards. i.e. (41.80 ... Therefore, it is evident that as against the decree passed in the suit filed under Section 6#HL_END....
Since the Defendant refused to give back possession of the suit house, the Plaintiff filed a suit for possession under section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (for short 'the Act'). 4. ... In the case of ITC Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the proceedings arising out of the suit under Section 6 of the Act as held as follows: "9. section 6 ....
That the Plaintiff values the subject matter and the relief claimed in this suit at Rs.7,50,000/-for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction, and herewith pays the Court Fee of Rs.48,375/-under Section 21 and 41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act through the Banker's Cheque/D.D. ... On the said ground, the suit has been valued at a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-and a Court fee....
as Court Fee for the relief of specific performance. ... (FR) No.10/2024 had been filed by the petitioner seeking for specific performance of contract dated 19.07.2021, which was valued by the petitioner under Section 40(A) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) and a sum of Rs.2,67,125/- was paid ... deficit Court Fee#HL_END....
The learned trial Judge accepted this contention of the defendants and on the basis that the suit falls under sec. 6 (iv) (d) of the Act he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff should pay a total Court fee of Rs. 1160. 00. ... The case of the defendants was that the suit for declaration and mandatory injunctions ought to have been valued under sec. 6 (iv) (d) of the Act. ... ... ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs contentio....
Defendants also disputed jurisdiction of the Court and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. ... to deposit in each succeeding month the rent or license fee claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. ... Use of the words 'the rent or license fees claimed in the suit' refers to the 'quantum of rent or license fees' payable in respect of the property and not to a prayer or relief sought in the suit. ... In the meant....
A perusal of Section 6 (2) of the Act, shows that the said section fixes a limitation that no suit under this Section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the date of possession. It cannot be read to mean that a suit which is filed within six months of the date of dispossession, shall be treated as suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.435/2007 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The above O.S was filed under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act') alleging dispossession of the property from the plaintiff. By virtue of the Will, he is in exclusive possession of the said property and building therein. According to the plaintiff, he obtained the plaint schedule property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 4.
8. As mentioned above, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act complaining of his dispossession from the suit land and seeking its restoration from the defendant. Parties adduced evidence (oral as well as documentary). On contest, the trial court decreed the suit and accordingly granted decree in plaintiff” s favour and against the defendant in relation to the suit land and directed the defendant to restore back the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.
8. As mentioned above, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act complaining of his dispossession from the suit land and seeking its restoration from the defendant. On contest, the trial court decreed the suit and accordingly granted decree in plaintiff’s favour and against the defendant in relation to the suit land and directed the defendant to restore back the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Parties adduced evidence (oral as well as documentary).
The only thing that is required to be seen, is whether the plaintiffs were in possession and whether he has been dispossessed without following due process of law and that too within 6 months of institution of the suit. The Court is not required to go into title or right of any party to be in possession or seeking possession. 8. In the suit under section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the Court is required to go into the question of dispossession otherwise than due process of law.
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
