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 key distinction is that Section 25 focuses on valuation based on market value for suits, while Section 40 pertains to cases involving declarations or cancellations of documents, where fee calculation is based on the relief rather than the valuation ["R.Subramanian vs IndusInd Bank Ltd. - Madras"] ["Appandai Raj S/o. Samuthiravijayan S/o. Samuthiravijayan VS N. Aishwarya D/o. C. Nemichandran - Madras"].
Main insights:
Proper classification affects the court's jurisdiction and the amount of court fee payable, making it crucial to determine the nature of the relief sought.
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["R.Subramanian vs IndusInd Bank Ltd. - Madras"]- ["Appandai Raj S/o. Samuthiravijayan S/o. Samuthiravijayan VS N. Aishwarya D/o. C. Nemichandran - Madras"]
Filing a lawsuit in Tamil Nadu? One critical aspect often overlooked is the correct court fee under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. A common query from litigants is: What's the difference between Section 25 and Section 40 of the Court Fee Act in Tamil Nadu? Getting this wrong can lead to delays, dismissals, or additional costs. This post breaks down the distinctions, helping you navigate these provisions effectively.
Whether you're seeking a declaration of rights or cancellation of a document, understanding these sections ensures compliance and avoids procedural pitfalls. We'll explore their scope, valuation methods, judicial interpretations, and practical tips.
The core distinction lies in the type of suits they govern and how court fees are calculated:
| Aspect | Section 25 | Section 40 ||---------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|| Type of Suit | Declarations, injunctions, not otherwise provided | Cancellation of decrees, documents, instruments || Fee Basis | Relief value, market value, or statutory minimum | Specific Act provisions; not solely on evidence || Valuation Flexibility | Plaintiff assesses; courts uphold unless undervalued | Strict statutory rules; no arbitrary determination |
This table highlights why misapplying sections can trigger objections. L. P. Alaghappa Chettiar VS V. Janardhanan - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2047
Section 25 primarily handles declaratory suits under Section 25(d), injunctions (Section 27(c)), and residuary suits (Section 53). It ensures fees reflect the relief's importance without overcomplicating valuation.
Courts typically accept the plaintiff's valuation unless it's grossly undervalued or inflated. The legislature empowers plaintiffs to self-assess, promoting access to justice. L. P. Alaghappa Chettiar VS V. Janardhanan - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2047
Judicial Insight: In cases like those referenced, courts emphasize plaintiff-centric valuation for declarations, distinguishing it from adversarial cancellations. C. Muthuselvi VS R. Vanaja - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2505 The learned Judge further held that for deciding the value of Court fee, the averments in the plaint alone are to be considered by the Court. C. Muthuselvi VS R. Vanaja - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2505
This section targets suits seeking cancellation of sale deeds, decrees, or instruments. It's stricter due to the destructive nature of the relief.
Valuation isn't based solely on evidence or the value of the instrument. Instead, it adheres to particular provisions of the Act. For sale deed cancellations, it often ties to property value or consideration, but strictly per statute. J. Vasanthi VS N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. - 2017 6 Supreme 25
Key Principle: The court fee cannot be arbitrarily determined based on evidence; it must adhere strictly to the valuation prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act. J. Vasanthi VS N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. - 2017 6 Supreme 25
Courts differentiate based on party status:- If plaintiffs are executants seeking nullity, it equates to cancellation under Sections 25(d) and 40. Therefore, they were liable to pay court fee under the provisions of Section 25(d) and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. Deepthi D/o Late A. S. Nagaraj VS Devamma - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 359- Non-parties to the document? Often Section 25(d) suffices, not 40(1). When the plaintiffs are not parties to the impugned sale deed, they need not pay Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act. C. Muthuselvi VS R. Vanaja - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2505
In another ruling: Hence, the Court fee has to be necessarily calculated and paid under Section 40(1) and not under section 25(d). But only if asserting title indirectly via declaration. B. Raghumaran (Rep. by his Power Agent, R. Bharathidasan) VS Pushpabai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3470
From precedents: The plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Act, not under Section 25(d) of the Act. When declaration implies cancellation. J. Vasanthi VS N. Ramani Kanthammal - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3437
Other sources echo caution: In partition suits, declaring a sale deed non-binding doesn't invoke cancellation fees. Similar logic applies in TN. Deepthi D/o Late A. S. Nagaraj VS Devamma - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 359
Courts stress: Valuation per plaint averments alone for preliminary issues. C. Muthuselvi VS R. Vanaja - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2505
Legal practitioners: Carefully examine the specific valuation provisions applicable to the suit type. Always verify against plaint claims.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on legal analyses and does not constitute specific legal advice. Court fees can vary by case facts; consult a qualified Tamil Nadu lawyer for your situation. Rules may evolve, so check latest amendments.
Stay informed on TN Court Fees Act updates to streamline your litigation. Have questions? Share in comments!
References:- M. Aamira Fathima VS Annamalai University - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 717, J. Vasanthi VS N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. - 2017 6 Supreme 25, C. J. Paul VS District Collector - 2009 6 Supreme 151, Congregation Of Zion Lutheran Church Pranthanery VS India Evangelical Lutheran Church - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4342, L. P. Alaghappa Chettiar VS V. Janardhanan - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2047, Deepthi D/o Late A. S. Nagaraj VS Devamma - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 359, K. L. Venugopal, s/o Late K. C. Lakshmaiah VS Vimala K. Venugopal, w/o Late K. L, Venugopal - 2018 Supreme(Kar) 102, B. Raghumaran (Rep. by his Power Agent, R. Bharathidasan) VS Pushpabai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3470, J. Vasanthi VS N. Ramani Kanthammal - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3437, C. Muthuselvi VS R. Vanaja - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2505
#CourtFeesAct #TNCourtFees #LegalValuation
been paid under Section 40(1) of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955 and not under Section 25(d) of the said Act. ... before the appropriate Court by fixing the value of the suit for the relief of declaration at Rs.30/- crores and after payment of necessary Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (the Act). ... Section #HL_S....
The Suit has been valued by the petitioner under Section 27(c) and 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee Act. ... Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay Court fee on the face value of the document as per Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. 5. ... The Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the valuation shall be under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees ....
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 08-12-2023 IN W.P. ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. ... JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 28674 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS S/O VARGHESE T.MATHEW, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, ANICAD Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10-05-2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF TH....
session 2024-25 in accordance with the Act of 2006. ... The Fee Regulatory Committee shall proceed fix the fee for academic session 2024-25 in respect of the Institutions before this Court, in accordance with law. b. ... 2024-25. ... referred to as ''the Act of 2006'') in enhancing the fee to be charged from the students for various medical courses run by the petitioner Institutions for the academic session 2024-25....
As stated supra, this Court cannot delve into a dispute that arises out of a contractual obligation betweeen the petitioner and the Bank. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ... The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent on 25.11.2010, rejecting his request in respect of penal interest charged by it.
But the Complainant argued that, being a workman, he was, by virtue of Section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") within the ambit of the Agreement and as such, he was entitlsd to retirement benefit under Section 40 thereof. ... His complaint is that, according to Article 40 of the Agreement, he should get a sum of $69,774.00 for his 32 years of service with the Company. The relevant portion of Article 40 of the Agreement reads as follows :- VI. ... The Compa....
It is relevant to note that from 1960 until 2024–25, the fee of Rs.10/- remained unchanged. Before the impugned Amending Act, the applicable fee was Rs.10/- under the residuary Article 11(t) of Schedule II, since no specific provision existed for anticipatory bail applications. ... Similarly, in Suits under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the revision of court fee is after 63 years. ... Under the Civil Code, Court fee is realised und....
For claims under the under Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act a fixed Court Fee of Rs. 15/- and for a claim under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure fixed Court Fee of Re. 1.25p is payable. ... In case of a claim under the Hindu Marriage Act, fixed Court Fee of Rs.15/- is to be affixed in terms of Article 14A of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Even in a claim for maintenance ....
territory, under CGST Act with similar late fee under SGST Act. ... by granting waiver of late fee recoverable under Section 47 of the Act. ... Therefore, the Court did not find any fault in the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent therein under Section 47 read with Section 73 of the Act for imposition of “Late Fee”. ... A reading of Section 11 of CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that it is similar to Section 5A of the Central Exerci....
Witnesses Act No.4 of 2015 read along with Bail Act No. 30 of 1997 Court of Appeal Case No. ... According to the provisions of the above mentioned act offences have been defined under sections 8 and 9 of the act and bail had been considered under section 10 of the act which says that only under exceptional circumstances the Court of Appeal may enlarge the suspects ... Hence as the indictments against the petitioners have already been forwarded, and this Co....
Under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the executant sought declaration as null and void, it amounts to cancellation of Sale-Deeds. Therefore, they were liable to pay court fee under the provisions of Section 25(d) and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955." For the reasons stated above the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained.
Therefore, they were liable to pay court fee under the provisions of Section 25(d) and 40 of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. Admittedly in the present case, the plaintiffs are not executants of the document sought as null and void. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the executant sought declaration as null and void, it amounts to cancellation of Sale Deeds. Therefore, they were liable to pay court fee under the provisions of Section 25(d) and 40 of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.#HL_END....
Insofar as the present suit is concerned, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the plaintiffs though not a party to the impugned Sale Deed dated 21.03.2007 (Ex.B2), he is indirectly wants to assert his title by way of declaration to declare the impugned Sale Deed as null and void and therefore, he is bound thereby. Hence, the Court fee has to be necessarily calculated and paid under Section 40(1) and not under section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Act, not under Section 25(d) of the Act. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the declaration sought for amounts to cancellation of sale deed. The learned senior counsel further submitted that this Court in number of cases have held that when a person is party to the sale deed, for cancellation of the said sale deed, the court fee has to be paid under Section 40 of the Act only.
The learned Judge further held that for deciding the value of Court fee, the averments in the plaint alone are to be considered by the Court. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the proper Court fee payable by the plaintiffs is only under Section 25(d) of the Act and there is no need to pay Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act. 14. In M.Nelson Babu v. K.Kamalesh Babu & another [2010(1) LW 289], this Court found that the plaintiffs were not parties to the document.
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
