Court Fees Act, 1870: s.7 – Computation of Fees – Money suit – Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20 Lakhs as damages on account of denying the status of freedom fighter and affixed court fees of Rs.50 – Appellant sought rejection of plaint on the ground of non payment of requisite court fee – Trial Court directed the respondent to make good the court-fees on the amount of Rs.20 lakhs claimed as damages – However, High Court set aside the order of trial court – On appeal, held: s.7 of the Act 1870 provides for computation of fees in certain suits – s.7(i) refers to Money Suits which includes suits for damages, compensation, arrears of maintenance, annuities or other sums payable periodically where the fee payable would be according to the amount claimed – s.7(iv) which has six categories where the fees would be payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal – For s.7(iv), liberty has been given to plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of Court fee – Present case is of money suit for compensation/damages and would fall u/s.7(i) of the Act – Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and relief has to be same in the money suit falling u/s.7(i) – Court fees shall be payable by the respondent on the valuation, i.e., on Rs. 20 lakhs – Hence, ad valorem Court-fees would have to be paid as per schedule 1 entry 1 – Order of the High Court set aside – Order of Trial court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Chapter III of the Act deals with ‘Fees in Other Courts and in Public Offices.’ Section 6 thereof provides that no document of any kind specified as chargeable in the First or Second Schedule of this Act would be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice or would be received or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document, fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said Schedules as the proper fee for such document is paid. First Schedule lays down the computation of ad valorem Court fees whereas Second Schedule gives the table of fixed Court fees payable on different categories of plaints, documents and pleadings. [Para 18] [537-F-G; 538-A-B]
2. Section 7 thereof provides for computation of fees payable in certain suits. Sub-clause (i) refers to Money Suits which includes suits for damages, compensation, arrears of maintenance, annuities or other sums payable periodically where the fee payable would be according to the amount claimed. Then, there are other sub-clauses which are not relevant for the case in hand. However, sub-clause (iv) which has further six categories, namely, suits (a) for movable property of no market value; (b) to enforce a right to share in joint family property; (c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief; (d) for an injunction; (e) for easements; and
(f) for accounts. The fees on a suit falling in these categories would be payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. It also states that in all such suits the plaintiff would state the amount at which he values the relief sought. [Para 19][538-B-E]
3. A reading of the relief clause in the plaint would make it abundantly clear that this was a money suit for compensation/damages and not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, there would be no question at all for the applicability of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It would be a simple case of applicability of Section 7(i) of the Act and ad valorem Court-fees would have to be paid as per Schedule
1 entry 1. It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount. Liberty given under clause (iv) to the specific suits of six categories is not available to the suits falling under any other clause, be it (i), (ii), (iii) etc. Once the suit in question was a money suit for compensation and damages falling under clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed. [Paras 20, 21][539-F-H; 540-A-B]
4. In the present case, the respondent has not given a separate valuation for relief sought and rightly so, as it had no liberty and right to give different valuation than what was being actually claimed. As a matter of fact, in Para 11 of the plaint it is clearly stated that the valuation is the same for Court-fees and jurisdiction. The valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be the same in the money suits falling under category 7(i). It was only in category of suits covered by Clause (iv) of Section 7 that there could be two different valuations for the purposes of jurisdiction and for relief sought. [Paras 28, 29] [543-B-D]
M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company v. Vimla Pannalal (1988) 3 SCC 423 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 431; M.P. Shreevastava v. Mrs. Veena[1967] 1 SCR 147; Shanbhagakannu Bhattar v. Muthu Bhattar AIR 1971 SC 2468 : [1971] 2 SCR 711; S.RM. AR. S. SP.
Sathappa Chettiar v. S. RM. AR. RM. Ramanathan
Chettiar 1958 AIR 245 : 1958 (0) SCR 1024– Held Inapplicable.
Manpreet Singh v. Gurmail Singh and others (2016) 4 Civil Court Cases 503 (PLH); State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan (2005) 1 RCR (Civil) 54; Ranjit Kaur v. PSEB6 (2006) SCC Online P&H 1095; Manjeet
Singh v. Beant Sharma 16(c) (2012) SCC Online P&H 13081; Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh (1993) Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H); Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar (2003) AIR (Punjab) 248; State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan (2005) 1 RCR (Civil) 54;
Manpreet Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2016) 3 PLR 751; Dr. B.L. Kapoor Memorial Hospital v. Balbir Aggarwal (2015) SCC Online P&H 1790; Bharpoor Singh and
another v. Lachhman Singh 2017(1) Law Herald 609 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.