 Welcome you all to another session from Beyond Laws CLC team on a topic of masterclass on the court weeks and suit valuation act. As discussed with the resource person. Subramaniam. Siri was a senior advocate from Karnataka High Court at the first outset I would say that since the pronunciation could be slightly different what I thought to him. So we're having four sessions on this topic of both fees and suit valuation act. Two parts will be conducted in the month of December, and two will be spilled over in the month of January. Since the topic is vast, and the resource person is good, taking into consideration that it is a vital part specially once you are practicing on the trial side. I wanted that the master should be divided in four parts. And without taking much time. I would request Mr Subramaniam who is a well known speaker plus a lawyer with immense knowledge. And he's also writing a book on this, consequently, taking into consideration the subject and the resource person. And as usual, the speakers have been kind enough to see to our request. Or do you serve. Thank you. Beyond Laws CLC. Thank you because for giving me an opportunity. As you rightly said, the subject is vast. However, I tried to give you some history, some comments and cover all the important aspects of court fee and suits valuation in the course of my anticipated four lectures. As you rightly said court trial lawyers, I've also been for 32 years. I was practicing extensively the trial courts, and I know the importance subject is dry, but it's interesting. So let's start the subject of court fee, be able in any court, except the Supreme Court falls under entry three of list two. State list of the seven schedule to the Constitution. Court fee payable in the Supreme Court falls under entry 77 of list one. There is a union list. As court fees payable in any court except the Supreme Court falls under the state list. 10 states, I think now it's 11 with Telangana added. I have already repeated the court fees act 1870 in its application to the respective states and have enacted their own court fee legislations. Most of the other states will not have a court fees act have also amended the court fees act 1870 as applicable to those states. The Union territory of Pondicherry, now known as Puducherry has enacted a separate court fees act. Parliament can make law only for Union territories and the Supreme Court on the subject of court. The Supreme Court has made rules in this behalf. So what is this court fee? Court fee is a fee that is imposed on a litigant to contest a case in a court of law. We are talking only of civil litigation. This fee is levied by the government on the people seeking judicial remedies through a legislation. This concept of court fee was introduced in India by the British during the colonial rule. Now the court fees act 1870 consists of 36 sections in six chapters. Section seven deals with computation of court fees payable on certain sources. Section eight is the computation of fee or the memorandum of appeal against orders relating to compensation. 9 to 11 deal with profit and accounting. 12 deals with valuation of relief in suits or appeals for collection of court fees. 13 to 15 deal with refund of fees for review and for remand of appeal. 17 deals with multifarious suits. 30 deals with cancellation of stamps. Received by the court by punching out the figurehead so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched. But since the, I will call it the central court fees act of 1870 was found to be defective, unscientific and no way exhaustive. And as administration of justice is allocated as one of the main functions of the state. The state not only has to maintain a system of administration of justice for the maintenance of law and order. But it also has to provide a system to enable its citizens to canvas their rights against wrongs done to them. As well as the state itself. 10 states now we've leveled with Telangana have either amended the provisions or enacted their own court fees acts. In every suit or proceeding there is a subject matter. The subject matter, the suit or proceeding to be mobile property, mobile property or just cash or the subject matter can be as intangible as rights. Now every subject matter in every suit or other proceeding has a value. Some can be determined some cannot. A valuation has to be made of the subject matter. The court fees and suits valuation acts across the country. Tell us how a given subject matter. And what is the court fee payable on that subject matter. The court fees acts connect the relief a person has sought in a particular suit or other proceeding. With the value of the subject matter and require payment of a fee. Which is considered to be the cost for the state assisting the parties resolve the dispute. The court fees acts across the country have different kinds of values. There is the market value. There is the statutory value. There is a notional value. And there's also the concept of fixed cold feet irrespective of value. For example, in Karnataka when I apply for probate irrespective if the state exceeds a certain figure then irrespective figure 100 crores 200 crores. The court fee payable is only 39,000 fixed doesn't make a difference that has been a change in the past. These concepts appear in all court fee legislations across the country in one form or the other. The only difference is the amount of court fee payable. Court fee being the state subject. The court fees payable for any given kind of case varies from state to state or union to it. We have to start somewhere. Let's start with market. Market value is the value that the property will fetch in the open market. Under the state of things prevailing on the date of the plate. If we take a land with trees on it. The value must include the value of the trees. But if this land is right worry land where the court fee legislation provides for calculation of market value as a multiple of the revenue. Then the trees need not be taken into account. So also in the case of lands with wells where the land as a whole is being valued the wells need not be separately well. The Allahabad High Court in Srimati Kamala Devi versus the Sunni Central Board of Works reported in AR 1949 Allahabad page 63 held that market value is the value. The property would fetch. In the open market, irrespective of any limitation to which it may be subject and regardless of any consideration, such as litigation attaching to. In the case of a land subject to mortgage, the value of the land and not merely the equity of redemption. Is it is the value for the purpose of the suit. This view was taken in Shiva Narayan versus Ram Kailavan reported in AR 1945 out 135. Now the Madras High Court in Farooq Ahmed versus Muhammad Hanif and another reported in 1963 volume to Madras Law Journal page 59. Is that estimates of mean profits may be inaccurate or exaggerate and that cannot be the basis upon a formula of capitalization to determine. The value unless no other method is available. Now the motor and pump set attached to a land cannot be required to be valued separately. The motor and pump set is embedded on the earth and attached for the beneficial enjoyment of that which it is attached. Now if I have land and death as a motor and pump set it's attached to draw water for the benefit of the land. The valuation of the land would include the value of the missionary. This was the view taken by the Madras High Court in PL Subramanya GTR versus PL reported in AR 1974 Madras page 5. Now when considering the tank bed land the Madras High Court held that the tank bed land has no market value as forming part of a land used for irrigating other lands. This view can be found in Manikyam Pillai versus Nagaswamy Iyer reported in AR 1934 Madras 714. Now when we go to section 7 of the court fees after 1870 we find the use of the word house. Now this has been held to be used in an extensive sense so as to include buildings which may not be used for residential purposes. The word house does not replace where people live it could be a factory. Thus it was held that an Indigo factory for example could fall within the ambit of house used in section 7 of the court fees. Now we have statute to evaluate many states I am not very sure if all the states are forwarded in respect of land paying land revenue. Court fee legislations provide that the value of the land will be a multiple of the land revenue being paid for the same. This is a legal fiction regarding the market value of the lands that form an entire state or a definite share of the estate. This method of valuation in respect of lands paying land revenue is a concession. If you look at it from a very different point of view you realize that when a farmer grows his crops the government has a minimum support price. They pay only for the crops they don't pay for the land. So with the result farmers and people doing agriculture are given this concession in the matter of valuation for determining the market value. Then we have something known as notional value. Notional value is just a figure in cases for bare injunction where a file is sued for bare injunction in the Karnataka for example. The value of such a suit is fixed at 1000 rupees and court fee of 25 rupees is required to be paid. This is for the reason that what is sought to be enforced is an intangible right for which there can be no market right. Now this is a side. Now coming back to the history of court fee legislations in the country. Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra area as it originally was, was under the composite state of Madras. In fact a part of Karnataka also, Bangalore also was under the Madras Presidency. The Madras government amended the central court fees act in 1922 and also the suits valuation act of 1887. For the state of Hyderabad, originally under Nizam rule, there was a court fee act of 1324 firstly. 1324 firstly, whenever you hear the word firstly, add 589 and you come to the current AD date. So when I say 1324 firstly, it means 1923 AD, that is the calendar which we use. After separation of Andhra area from the composite state of Madras, the Andhra Pradesh court fees and suits valuation act was enacted in 1956 with the effect from 1st of May. Subsequently, the act was extended to the erstwhile Hyderabad state. This continued till the formation of Telangana state. Both states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have separate enactments for court fees and suits valuation. Karnataka introduced the Karnataka court fees and suits valuation act in 1958. As a matter of interest, the court fees acts of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are very similar and one can be used to understand the other. The principles and the words and the concepts used all for the legislation being more or less the same. We can draw a wealth of information from other states also in form of decisions to explain or try to explain what a particular word or a phrase means. In 1999, the Department of Justice had examined the proposal to amend the court fees act of 1870. This was in person of the recommendations of the expert group appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the Department of Justice in the approval of the then Minister of Law decided not to amend the act, especially in view of the provisions of the devolution act 1920 which empowers states to amend the court fees act 1870. The devolution act has been repealed in 1938. But because of this, the court fees act can be amended by the states and therefore it was found not necessary for the centre to amend the court fees. As far as court fees payable in other courts exercising jurisdiction over the union territories is concerned. Total parliament can enact any law by virtue of the power conferred on it by article 246 for the Constitution. Now apart from article 246 for the Constitution, the President of India may also under article 240 of the Constitution make regulations for the peace, progress and good governments of the union territories of Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadir, Dhadra Nagarhaveli, Damandu and Pondicherry. I think we can possibly add or maybe I don't know add Ladakh. However for the union territory of Pondicherry any regulation can only be made by the President when the legislative assembly of the union territory of Pondicherry is dissolved or is under suspension. At present there are only seven territories having status of union territory. These are Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar islands, Lakshadir, Dhadra Nagarhaveli, Damandu, Pondicherry and Chathigarh. Amongst these seven union territories, Delhi and Pondicherry are having their own legislative assemblies also. These legislative assemblies can also enact any law on a subject following in list 2. That is the state list, the seventh schedule to the Constitution. For Delhi you could see sub clause A of clause 3 of article 239 A of the Constitution of India. For Pondicherry you can see section 18 of the Government of Union Territories Act 1963. However the Parliament's power under article 246-4 is unaffected and any law made by Parliament will prevail or any law made by the legislative assembly mentioned above. For this you can see sub clauses B and C of sub clause 3 of article 239 A of the Constitution of India. And sections 18 sub section 2 and 21 of the Government of Union Territories Act 1963. In fact the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly has already enacted the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in 1972. There are a list of states which have repealed the Court Fees Act 1870 in their territories and enacted their own Court Fees Acts. One Andhra Pradesh, they have the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1926. Gujarat and we have Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act 1968. Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir Court Fees Act 1977. Karnataka, Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958. Kerala, Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1960. Maharashtra, Bombay Court Fees Act 1959. Rajasthan, Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1961. Tamil Nadu 1955. West Bengal 1970. The Union Territory of Pondicherry 1972. But apart from this, some states have amended the provisions of the Court Fees Act 1870 from time to time as applicable in those respective states. They are Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura. Manipur and Tripura were formerly Union Territories. As per Section 2 of the Union Territories Laws Act 1950. The central government is empowered to extend to Union Territories of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Navastate, Manipur Navastate and Tripura Navastate. Any enactment which was enforced in that state. In exercise of this power, the Court Fees Act of 1870, as enforced in the state of Assam, was extended to Manipur and Tripura. Manipur and Tripura have now become states by the North Eastern Area's reorganization Act 1971. Now Goa, the Territory of Goa was formerly part of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Dhu. By Regulation 11 of 1963 with effect from 3rd September 1964. Court Fees Act 1870 has been extended to Goa, Daman and Dhu. This Act was further amended in 1970. Now Goa has become a state by the Goa, Daman and Dhu Reorganization Act 87. Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland. The territories of all these states were formerly part of the Assam state. The Court Fees Act 1870 as applicable in the state of Assam continues to be enforced in these states. Nagaland was made a state by the state of Nagaland Act 1962. As per Section 26 of the SED Act, all laws which were enforced in the Territory of Nagaland are continued to be enforced. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh were made separate Union Territories by Section 6 and 7 of the North Eastern Area Reorganized Act 1971. Here again, as per Section 77 of the SED Act of 1971, all laws which were enforced in these territories are continued to be enforced. Arunachal Pradesh was made a state by the state of Arunachal Pradesh Act 1986. As per Section 46 of the SED Act, all laws which were enforced in the Territory continued to be enforced. Mizoram was made a state in 1986 as per the State of Mizoram Act 1986 and Section 43 of this Act also provides similar. Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranshar, these states were formerly parts of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh respectively. The Court Fees Act 1870 as applicable in these states before the reorganization in the year 2000 is still continued to be enforced by virtue of Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, Section 86 of the UP Reorganization Act and 78 of the MP Reorganization Act. By the 36th Amendment to the Constitution in 1975, the territory of SED was included in the Territory of India and made a state. As per Article 371 F of the Constitution, the High Court and other courts situated in SED continue to be in existence. You can see Clause I and J of Article 371 F. Similarly, all laws which were enforced at that time in SED were declared to be continued in force. Now, Court Fees Act 1870 is applicable in Union Territories, Delhi. The Court Fees Act 1870 as amended has been extended to Delhi with effect from 1859. It was further amended by the Court Fees, Delhi in 1967. The territory of Chandigarh formerly part of the Punjab state, it became a separate Union Territory and all in 1966. Andaman and Nicobar Islands, it was a chief commissioner's province under the Government of India in 1935. Formerly Toshora is a part D state in the Constitution of India and is now in Union Territory. The Court Fees Act of 1870 was extended to the new provinces by Section 3 Redwoods, the schedule to the Merge States Laws Act 1941. For the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Court Fees Act 1870 has been amended by the Court Fees, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Amendment Regulation 1957. Dasaraj Nagarhaveli, the territory of the free Dasaraj Nagarhaveli was made a Union Territory by the Constitution 10th Amendment Act 1961. And the Court Fees Act of 1870 was extended. Damanandiyu 1870 was extended in 1963 and amended again in 1966 and 70. Lakshadiv, it was part of the former Madras state. It was made a Union Territory by the state's reorganization act 1956. The old name was Lakadiv, Minikoy and Amindive Islands. It became Lakshadiv by the Lakadiv, Minikoy and Amindive Islands Alteration of Names Act 1973. Court Fees Act 1870 has been extended to this act. Pondicherry also. As I've already told you, the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry has enacted Pondicherry Court Fees and Sootfoil Act of 1970. The 1870 Court Fees Act, which was applicable in Pondicherry, has since been repeat. Now all of you have heard a lot of history. Let me give you a bit of trivial information. There is empirical evidence that the judiciary earns more than it spends. There was a study of the budgets and working of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court in 1984. This study reveals some interesting facts. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan had prepared a report called Litigation Explosion in India. It was published by the Indian Law Institute and showed that the figures for the year 1957 to 1977 indicated that the Supreme Court invariably spent less than the sum it received under the head grant allocated and other receipts. The amount collected as court fee virtually remained unspent. As regards the judiciary in Uttar Pradesh, including the Allahabad High Court for the figures 1961-62 to 1978-79, showed that the income earned by the courts from judicial stamps and fees on rits, vakaalaknam etc. was always in excess of what was spent on them, thus leaving a substantial surplus in heat. Dr. Dhawan in his report comments, The judiciary is India's best nationalised industry. As a whole, it earns more than it spends. In that sense, it can also be described as the least expensive branch. That was just a bit of information which I read somewhere, thought it would be interesting. Now we come back to the Central Court Fees Act. As I said, divided into seven chapters, chapter one comprises sections one and two as preliminary. Chapter two covers three sections three to five with deals with fees of high court and court of small causes at presidency terms. Chapter three covers section six to nineteen, which deals with fees of other courts and public offices. Few sections are also applicable for the high court. Chapter three of the Act comprising nineteen eight to nineteen K deals with probates and letters of administration. Chapter four deals with process fees. Chapter five with the mode of living the fee and chapter six is miscellaneous. Apart from these chapters, the Court Fees Act 1870 consists of two schedules. Schedule one and two gives extensive arrangement, various kinds of suits regarding the subject matter relief claim, along with the table of fees payable. Schedules also provide the fees payable of certain documents shall vary according to the court in which they are filed. Section six of the Act provides that except in the courts mentioned, no document of any kind specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule to this Act. Next shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any court of justice or shall be received 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 by either the said schedules as the proper fee for such document. This section relates to courts other than those specified in section four and to public offices and makes a provision that is similar to section four for such courts and public office. It precludes courts and offices to collect or provide any document unless it has been properly stamped. This section urges the courts to see whether a document presented before it is sufficiently stamped. By this section, the court can question the sufficiency or otherwise of the court fee by looking into the allegations made in the plate. If a substantive relief is claimed, though clothed in the garb of a declaratory decree with a consequential relief, the court is entitled to see what is the real nature of the relief. And if it is satisfied, then it is not a mere consequential relief, but a substantive relief. It can request proper court fee or that relief irrespective of the arbitrary valuation that may have been put on it by the plaintiff on the ostensible consequential relief. There is one case, which may be of some use, Raghunath Ganesh versus Vaman Vasudev reported in AR 1950 Bombay 234, AR 1950 Bombay 234. In this case, the Bombay High Court held that section 4 should be read along with section 28 that this section does not control the application of section 149 of the civil procedure court. If any conflict arises between sections 4 and section 6 of the court fees act and section 149 of the CPC, then it can be resolved by section 8 of the court fees act. When an insufficient please stamp memorandum of appeal comes before the court, it deals with the ambit of section 28 of the court fees act and section 149 of the civil procedure court. It depends on the court, reject or simply refuse the request. In either case, the appellate is entitled to present a fresh memorandum of appeal on sufficient court fee. Section 7 of the act states the various processes by which fees in different lawsuits are to be determined. This section purports to deal with the method of computation of court fees, payable or different lawsuits mentioned in the clauses. Section 7 contemplates three modes of valuation of the subject matter. One, valuation depends upon the actual value of the subject matter that determines the amount of court fee to be paid. Two, artificial value based on the fixed rules of calculation. Three, notional value, valuation at the option of the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself will value the court fee payable by him based on the relief he is seeking. Schedules 1 and 2 venture to provide a complete classification of different kinds of suits. The schedule states that proper court fee shall vary according to the courts in which the case is filed depending upon some documents. There might be no changes in court fee regarding some documents. Schedule 1 applies to that court fee which are payable either on the plaintiff or memorandum of appeal. In schedule 2 it is mentioned that the plaintiff appeals in a lawsuit where all the fixed fees prescribe to the plaintiff. Section 4 and section 6 state that the plaintiff has to be stamped with the court fee either in the schedule 1 or schedule 2. The two schedules classify lawsuits into different rules either by schedule 1's ad valorem fee or by schedule 2's fixed fee. Section 13 of the court fees act 1870 states that if an appeal which is rejected by the lower court on any of the grounds mentioned in the court of civil procedure or if a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned. The appellate court has to grant a certificate to the appellate authorizing him to collect the full amount of fee paid for the memorandum of appeal from the collector. Section 15 of the act states that when in a case an application is considered for the review of the judgment that the court modifies its former judgment on the grounds of mistake of the law or mistake of fact. Section 15 the applicant is entitled to receive from the court a certificate authorizing him to collect the amount of fee paid on the application under the second schedule. Sections 25 to 27 deal with the mode of collecting fees. Section 25 all fees mentioned under section 3 of this act shall be collected by stamps. Section 26 provides that stamps should be partly adhesive and partly impressed as per the government. Section 27 says that the appropriate government may from time to time make rules regulating the supply of stamps to be used. The number of stamps to be used for denoting anything. The renewal of damaged or spoiled stamps. Keeping of accounts. Now, as per the amendment to the code of civil procedure in 1999 by chapter 6. Section 34. The central court is at 1870 section 16 for refund of court fees was introduced consequent to a new section 89 CPC. Section 16 of the amended act says that where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the modes of settlement. Section 18 of disputes referred to in section 89 arbitration conciliation judicial settlement including settlement through low catalogue of mediation. The plaintiff will be entitled to a certificate from the court authorizing him to receive back from the collector. The full amount of the court fees paid in respect of such a place. Now, we will go into some philosophical or philosophical aspects. What is the nature of court fee? And what is its justification? There are a few questions shall try to answer. Is court fee a fee or a tax? Can access to justice be for a price? The issue of court fee require a different treatment in the context of administration of criminal justice. Does the collection of court fee impede civil justice? Is it fair on the part of the court to charge court fee? Is there a need for governments to provide more money for the better administration of justice? This act is a fiscal net. Its primary objective is to shield or protect the revenue of the state. It was passed to secure the revenue for the benefit of the state. Court fee is considered as a state aid. The government has an obligation to pay court fees as much as any other party approaches a court of law. This act also determines the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not mandatory for the court fee valuation of the jurisdiction value to be the same. The right procedure is to ascertain the value for court fees and then adopt the same value for jurisdiction. It is permissible. Now, levies can be divided into two major categories. Fees and taxes. Deep Arpo in his book First Principles of Public Finance at page 78 has said that a fee is a charge for a particular service of special benefit to individuals or to a class and of general benefit to the public or it is a charge to meet the cost of regulation that primarily benefits society. In Central Coal Fields Limited versus Jaiswal Coal Company reported in AR 1980 Supreme Court, 2125. The Supreme Court through Justice Krishna here said that the effective access to justice is one of the basic requirements of a system and a high amount of court fee may amount to sale of justice. The right to effective access to justice has emerged as the first among new social rights as seen by the proliferation of public interest litigations, community based actions and pro bono public proceedings. Effective access to justice is the basic requirement of a system which guarantees legal rights. As he then was and who went on to become the Chief Justice of India, said in PM Ashwatnara and said he was a state of Karnataka reported in 1989 supplement first volume SCC 696 that a person who launches a police complaint is not expected to pay for the services of the police depending on whether the monetary value of the complaint is big or small. So also in the case of the justice delivery system the state is not supposed to collect a fee depending on the nature of the subject matter in this way. Later the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government of India versus PR Sriram Ulu reported in 1996 volume 1 SCC 345 said that the administration of justice is a service which the state is under an obligation to render to its subjects. The Law Commission shall I go back 1996 1 SCC 345. The Law Commission in its 14th report on reform of judicial administration, old one 1958 notices that court fee is a limitation and a deterrent to access to justice and if access to the court is dependent on the payment of court fee and if a person is unable to pay court fee justice becomes unequal. The Law Commission in its 114th report on Graman Yaya Lea 1986 said that it was a fundamental duty of every government to provide a mechanism for resolution of disputes. The people who are constitution as well as article 38 mandate that the state shall secure and protect as effectively as it may. A social order in which justice is available to all its citizens. Article 39 capital A was introduced into the constitution for the 42nd amendment. Also to be read are article 8 of the universal declaration of human rights 1948 and article 23 of the international coverage on civil and political rights. Now we come to criminal justice. The Law Commission is 127th report. Discuss the distinction between civil and criminal justice. The Law Commission said that the distinguishing feature between civil justice system. And the criminal justice system lies in the fact that the civil justice system provides for a resolution of disputes between individuals and the state and even between states. On the other hand, the criminal justice system partakes the character of a regulatory mechanism of the society. Where by the state enforces discipline in the society for investigation of crime and punishment. Does the obligations of the state in respect of the administration of civil and criminal justice differ very materially. In its 128th report, the Law Commission said that the administration of criminal justice is the obligatory duty of the state as part of its sovereign functions and no fee can be levied for performing the same. And also because the system does not render service to any litigant. We now come to the last point where the collection of court fee impedes the access to justice. The Law Commission is 128th report has observed that when it comes to civil justice, the current approach has to undergo a change. The Supreme Court has said that while court fee can be collected for purpose of civil justice, there is no obligation on the part of the state to collect such a fee. The general public revenues can be used to meet either in whole or in part the expenses of the administration of civil justice. Next we come to the types of court. There are two kinds of court fees under the court fees. One, add well on court fees schedule one. It means according to the valuation. Add well on duties are always estimated at a certain percent on the valuation of the property as opposed to fixed or specific duties. Fixed or specific duties is the second type comes under schedule two. Now computation of court section seven contemplates three types of valuation by valuing it according to its market value. By ascribing to the subject matter and artificial value based on certain fixed rules of calculation by requiring the plaintiff to himself value the relief. Now this section applies only where add well on fee is payable. Now under section seven, how is court fee computed? In suits for money, court fee is computed according to the amount claimed. In suits for maintenance or annuities or other sums payable periodically. Ten times the amount claimed to be payable in a year. In suits for mobile property where the subject matter has a market value. According to the market value on the date the plate is presented. Suit for possession of land, buildings or gardens. According to the market value or net profit into 15 times, whichever is higher. Suits for preemption if instituted under Muslim personal law is according to the market value of the property. Suits for partition according to the market value of the share in respect of which the suit has been instituted. As a matter of interest in Karnataka in a suit for partition where there is an ornament in the plate that the plaintiff is in joint position. There is a fixed court fee of rupees 200 irrespective of the market value of the properties. Now suits for the interest of an assignee of land review. 15 times the net profit. Suits to set aside an attachment of land according to the amount for which the land was attached. Suits to redeem mortgage and suit for foreclosing according to the principle money. Suits for injunction or for a right to some benefiterizing land. In such case the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the suit. Now again I am being from Karnataka in Karnataka. When you file a suit for thing instead of the plaintiff fixing of value it is set 1000 rupees. Court fee of 25. Now section 35 of the court fees act of 1870 says the appropriate government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette reduce a remit in whole or in part any in any whole or in part of the territories under its administration. All or any of the fees mentioned in the first and second schedule to this act the appropriate government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette reduce a remit the fees. This section states that the appropriate government whether the central government or the respective state governments from time to time have the authority to reduce or remit the fees mentioned in the first and second schedule. And also after having remitted or reduced it can also as the power to cancel such amount. Now this continuous theory possibly get boring. So let me see a few under section 7 rendered in states in which the court fees act 1970 is still enforced in state of Nagaland versus others and others versus Dr. Mechumla Anar reported in 2017 to Gauhati law report 614. 2017 to Gauhati law reports 614. The concept of consequential relief was considered and the court referring to the law like second held that the words relief sought in section 7 4 of the court fees act 1870 does not refer to the consequential relief only but that they may mean the relief sought as a whole. The next judgment in Gauhati Prasad and another versus Mahesh Singh reported in 2017 volume 3 Madhya Pradesh law journal 2020 2017 3 Madhya Pradesh law journal 2020. It was held that the true test to ascertain whether the consequential relief in fact flows from the declaratory relief is as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independently of declaration as a substantial relief or not. Every injunction in a suit for injunction would not flow from a declaration in case where the plaintiff is in possession of the property in his own rights and seeks a declaration. In such a case section 7 4d would be applicable for valuing the relief of injunction and article 17 of schedule 2 of the act will provide the court fees for such a declaration where the relief of permanent injunction can be treated as a substantial relief and not as a consequential relief. Section 4c of the act will not be attractive for those of you who are possibly interested academic you may also see Sabina versus Muhammad Abdul Wasit. Sabina versus Muhammad Abdul Wasit reported in 1997 volume 1 Madhya Pradesh law journal 554. The next judgment is Ashok Kumar Gehani versus Ram Hed Agrawal and another reported in 2008 1 Madhya Pradesh law journal 116. Parash Ram Fateh versus Union Bank of India reported in 2008 volume 1 Madhya Pradesh law journal 117. In Rampyari Devi versus Kashinath Sahab reported in 2015 SCC online partner 10154 2015 SCC partner SCC online partner 10154. The court was considering section 7 9 of the court fees act and held that it provided that it suits against a mortgage for recovery of the property. Mortgage the court fees should be payable according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument and the situation would not change where the defendant made a counter claim for a degree of redemption. In Kapoor alias Kapoor Chand Jain versus Anandita Sahe reported in 2018 SCC online jargon 1607 2018 SCC online jargon 1607 the court considered section 7 11 CC and held that has no relief of arrears of rent was sought. The suit valuation of the basis of one year's rent was correct in Ram Gia Singh versus Ram Niva Singh reported in 2019 SCC online Madhya Pradesh 4947 2019 SCC online Madhya Pradesh 4947 the court considered section 75 of the act and also referred to Chotu versus Moola. Reported in 2008 RN 110 and held that though the suit was initially filed for injunction and later amended for possession no additional court view was payable as the plaintiff was asking for relief for possession of land assessed to land revenue and had already paid higher court fee in accordance with seven of the act. In Khan Siraj versus Raghuvir Singh reported in 2020 SCC online Delhi 26 2020 SCC online Delhi 26 the court referring to Makhan Singh versus Swimati Amarjeet Mali reported in volume 154 bracket year 2008 Delhi law times page 2011. Heard that where the tenant. Continues in occupation after he repudiates the title of the landlord. The lease comes to an end by operation of law because of the repudiation of the title and the landlord can file a suit. For possession in a civil court and the valuation of such a suit has to be on the basis of the annual rent under section 711 CC of the court fees act 1870 in West Bengal which earlier followed the court fees act with amendments. The same was repealed. And replaced by the West Bengal court fees act 1970. In Jithin Das and others versus Mathiyari Vivekananda Shikshale and another reported in AR 2020 Calcutta 228 AR 2020 Calcutta 228. It was held that a section 76 B of the 1970 act was the same as the corresponding provision in the amended 1870 act as amended in West Bengal. They followed the decision of the division bench in Amritlalal Chatterjee versus Hirayal Chatterjee reported in 70 Calcutta weekly notes 857 70 CWN 857. A suit for recovery of possession from a licensee upon termination of his license was the same in Amritlalal's case and the market value of the suit property was not the only objective standard to fix and revise the court. This is a few judgments under section 7. I will collate all this in my later lectures initially just to give you an idea of how these things are going to be. Next we go to section 12. The Supreme Court in Nehmi Chand another versus Edward Mills Company reported in AR 1953 Supreme Court page 28 has dealt with AR 1953 Supreme Court page 28 has dealt with sections 5 and 12 of the court fees act and held. The scope of section 12 was narrower than that of section 5. Section 5 declares decisions on questions of court fees whenever they arise in the chartered high courts as final and makes the decision to make a court for your the amount final. On the other hand section 12 makes a decision on every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee payable under chapter 3 on a plaint or memorandum of the final. In this judgment the Supreme Court laid down the principle of law when two sections in the same act relating to the same subject matter have been drafted in different languages. It is not unreasonable to infer that they were enacted with a different intention. And that in one case was to give finality to all decisions in the taxing office or the judge and on the other it was intended that only to give finality to questions of fact that are decided by a court of law and not to questions of law. In the same judgment at Para 11 it is an interesting judgment. The Supreme Court said that the expression valuation interpreted in the ordinary meaning of appraisement cannot be said to necessarily include within its ambit the question of category which is a matter of law. The Punjab High Court in Basantlal versus Baru and another reported in volume 191 Punjab series 602 said that where a part of the subject matter of the suit is comprised in the appeal before the appellate court. Deficit court fee only in respect of that part can be living and not in respect of the entire subject matter of the suit. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I've been continuously speaking for about a little more than an hour. So I will continue tomorrow and then I will slowly start getting you into more and more specifics. So now we have completed more or less the kind of history which we have been seeing I'll get into specifics. And then completely analyze the whole situation and say how court fees act in my last lecture court fees act should be interpreted how important judgments from various states irrespective of what court fees act is available in those states can apply to every other court fee legislation. Thank you. Thank you sir. Till the questions come to three questions we had gotten. How does one interpret explanation two to section 38 of the court fees act and suit valuation act. Does it mean that suit for cancellation ought to be valued as a suit for possession in the event conditions therein are satisfied. If you look at section 30. This is a reference to the Karnataka court fees act only. Karnataka court fees act okay. Section 38 deals with cancellation of documents. So if you ask me Karnataka I can respond to it. Karnataka 38 refers to cancellation of documents. Read section 38 it says. I will ask someone if someone can add that section. Section 38 deals with suits for cancellation of degrees etc. Or other documents. So what happens is when you ask for cancellation. The value stated in the document has to come there on the value of the subject matter of the suit. Now in Karnataka what happens there is a market value say of 1 crore. But the government value is fixed at about 75 lakhs. Across the board courts have said that the government value which is fixed for properties in specified locations will be the market value. Irrespective of what may be the current supply demand position. That is how we have to interpret. I will come to 28 specifically later. I don't want to preempt this. Somebody has asked section 38 explanation. I will make a note of it and come to it. No problem. Can you explain the concept of guidance value? When must the guidance value be factored in the context of suit valuation? The reason is that if you look at properties ultimately willing buyer willing seller is the price. Somebody may decide that this property has got sentimental value. It's worth a crore. Another person may say it's not only so many square feet it's worth 25 lakhs. The guidance value by the government takes into account the locality in which it's situated. The age of the building has got mosaic tiles. Whether it's got electricity RCC roof. And says this is the price per square foot of say an apartment. It says this is the price per square foot of vacant land. And that becomes if I have to file a suit. I just put the guidance value and see which area. What is it fixed the court will not raise any further objection. That becomes non-controversial determination of market well which otherwise can go back and forth. This is so it is more like what we say under the land acquisition a developed land and a developing land. While we evaluate. Yes. Here the government does that job and says this is it and we accept it. Under the land acquisition we say that the other party would always say that it's not a developed land but it's a developing land. Or it has a potentiality of the developing land rather than what is a pension land. The government will say the land is valued at 1 rupee. The man who owns the land is valued at 100 rupees. So here we come to this one more thing is. Now who would want to pay more court fee if the government guidance value generally is about 25 to 30% or 40% lower than the actual market value. I have no objection to paying court fee on that one. That is a part of you of a practicing lawyer. Why will I want to say I can know if the guidance value is 50 lakhs I can value my suit at 70 lakhs and pay a court fee. I don't think anybody would do that. But there are certain instances under the debt recovery act when the property is sold or under the Securitization Act. Under the Securitization of Banks what they do is they take market value as 2 crores. They have distressed sale value. They reduce it by about half and then they sell it. In a lot of cases what happens is that they are given to an agency. And once the agency is given under the distressed sale the sale is much lower than even the collector price. Then whether you will have to fix the stamp in terms of the collector price or what you have bought it at the collector price on the distressed sale. No, no, I can buy a property for 100 rupees but I have to pay a stamp duty on the guidance value. Of the collector price? Yes, I can buy it, I can say that I will buy a property from you for 100 rupees. But the property is worth 3 crores according to the government. I have to pay a stamp duty on 3 crores. In terms of article 23 of the Stamp Act? Yes, I have to pay according to, there can be two values. One is the actual sale value. One is the value for the purposes of stamp duty. The government says you can take less or pay less but I am not going to be deprived of my money. In terms of which provision or any judicial precedent to that effect? Yes, there are a lot of them. I will come all of them. One by one I will come because there are two questions. One is there can be two valuations. The other is question of valuations for purpose of court fee, question of valuations for the purpose of jurisdiction. They can be different. Sometimes both merge and become one. I will get through to all of this lecture. Subject is true. Get some hold of it before I go further. And tomorrow you will take it. You can see that relief of an element of a document sought by a non-signatory to the document. Yes. Is it a declaration or a cancellation? Could you just throw some light upon this? Because due to some clever drafting, the substantive relief of cancellation and the garb of declaratory reliefs are being sought. I will do that. Tomorrow I will do that. Okay. Then there is a request. Privately it says kindly deal with the Kanataka court fees and stamp valuation act more specifically. No, I don't mind doing that completely tomorrow. There is no problem. Point is I am doing court fees act. I thought I need to go around the country and at least see where what is there. And before I come back to Kanataka and say that I will do this. That could be more specific because since we have a pan-Indian audience. Yes. Since pan-Indian audience, it is very unfair to restrict percent of the Kanataka. Possibly it will help Kanataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, nothing else. I am just saying on the Facebook if we have some questions. No, we don't have. Thank you. So thank you on behalf of all those participants who have watched us live on the Facebook and on this platform. Tomorrow we will be having the part two of court fees and suit valuation act by Mr. Subramaniam Sirivasthwa. And there is one request by Vani Gorda. She wants to ask something. Please. Vani. That's as they call that parting shot or what Mahindra Singh Dhoni used to have a helicopter shot at a final six. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Thanks for giving wonderful lecture. It was very useful. But my request on behalf of DJ Asperin since we have exams in the next month. It will be more, our exams is very particular about Kanataka and KFA fund as we act. You convince Mr. Vikas that I should speak on Kanataka court fee tomorrow. I speak on Kanataka court fee tomorrow. It will be more helpful for the DJ aspirants on behalf of all the aspirants I am just requesting. I understand. I understand. I will do that. Then I will restrict myself tomorrow to Kanataka. Then we will go on to the third and fourth and cover the others. So what you want to do, primarily you cover Kanataka but still you have this because if we do that it will be very religion, not religion. Religion is specific. And then we won't have the audience as such. You can cover around 50% of that part. We will do. Because it's not that the only the superior judiciary only the people from Kanataka would be appearing. There are other aspirants in India also. Yes, I will do that. Thank you so much. Everybody can have a glimpse of that and move in the direction in which they actually want to move around. Thank you. Thank you sir. And thank you to all the participants. Everyone stay safe. Stay blessed. And tomorrow we will connect at 5 PM instead of 4 PM. Thank you. Good night. Can I leave? Definitely sir. Thank you. We will connect tomorrow.