Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Ins. by Act 6 1905, sec. 2(1) THE COURT-FEES ACT,1870 10 (d) to contest a' notice of ejectment. (e) to recover the occupancy of l[immoveable property] from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord, and (f) for abatement of rent- according to the amount of the rent of the l[immoveable property] to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. COMMENTS (i) In general the court-fee has to be decided on the basis of the subject-matter of the suit and the appeal arising therefrom. It shall not be substantially affected by the claim as set out in the relief by the plaintiff; In Re. Thirupathiammal, AIR 1956 Mad 179. (ii) It has been held that the question of court-fee must be decided having regard to the averments made in the plaint itself and the contentions raised in the written statement or the final decision on merits cannot affect the same; Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245. (iii) It has been held that when the plaintiff paid ad valorem court-fee in a suit for recovery of a specific calculated amount as damages on account of leakage of cooking gas cylinder leading to accident the valuation was correct; Bhagwant Sarup v. Himalay Gas Co., AIR 1985 HP 41. (iv) It has held that in a suit for partition the share claimed by the plaintiff would determine the court-fee and not the property as a whole; Rakesh Chandra Das v. Khan Bahadur Abdul Majid Choudhary, AIR 1982 Gau 82. (v) It has been held that valuation as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint of the suit is conclusive and final; Kesho Mahton v. Ayodhya Mahton, AIR 1983 Pat 67. (vi) It has been held that section 7(iv)(f) is applicable to a suit for dissolution of partnership at will and rendition of accounts in as much as it is a suit for accounts and value for jurisdiction and court-fee is the same ad valorem court-fee to be paid under section 7; Madan Mohan Sharma v. Vttam Singh Bagga, AIR 1985 J&K 87. (vii) The Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to make up deficiency of court-fees and under Order VII rule 11 it is provided that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court fails to do so. It has been held in such cases where the valuation made by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is unreasonable and arbitrary the court can exercise its powers vested in it under Order VII rule 11 CPC; Mana Das v. Kisto Das, AIR 1983 Pat 272. (viii) The Delhi High Court has held that if plaintiff files a suit for declarations and injunctions and the reliefs claimed are wholly independent of each other then the suit is not governed by section 7(iv)(c); S.c. Malik v. Surender Nath Puri, 1991 RLR (N0TE) 85. (ix) It has been held that the words 'subject-matter' used in the section include relief or reliefs; Md. Hafiz v. Mustt Noorjahan, AIR 1989 Gau 13 (x) It has been held that in a single suit for recovery filed by a Bank against the defendant borrower pertaining to separate accounts in its different branches court-fee has to be paid on each of the account separately; Bank of India v. Vinod Kumar Bhalla, AIR 1988 Del 79. (xi) It has been held that paragraph (iv) of section 7 of the Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes on the reliefs he seeks, subject, however to any rules made under section 9 of the Suit ________________________