Section 7 Court Fees Act: Computation of fees payable in certain suits

Section 7 of Court Fees Act: Computation of fees payable in certain suits

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:—

(i) for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)—according to the amount claimed;

(ii) for maintenance and annuities—according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;

(iii) for other movable property having a market-value—according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint;

(iv) in 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;

(f) for accounts—according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;

(v) in suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens—according to the value of the subject-matter;

(vi) in suits to enforce a right of pre-emption—according to the value of the land, house or garden in respect of which the right is claimed;

(vii) in suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue—according to fifteen times the net profits arising from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint;

(viii) in suits to set aside an attachment of land or of an interest in land or revenue—according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached;

(ix) in suits to redeem mortgage or foreclose—according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage;

(x) in suits for specific performance—according to the amount of consideration or value of property;

(xi) in suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of immovable property—according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 7

Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 constitutes the substantive master-charter for the computation of ad valorem court fees across various classes of civil suits in Indian courts.

Core Legal Standard: The section embodies the complex balance between fiscal revenue and access to justice.
Procedural Rule & Jurisdiction: In declaratory suits, the crucial distinction lies between cases where the plaintiff seeks declaration with consequential relief (such as cancellation of a sale deed to which the plaintiff is an executant) and cases where a non-executant seeks a pure declaration that a document is void and non-binding upon their coparcenary or proprietary interest.

Under the authoritative *Suhrid Singh* doctrine, plaintiffs must carefully examine their privity to the contested document: executants must pay ad valorem court fees on the deed consideration, whereas non-executants (e.g., coparceners challenging ancestral alienation) can maintain suits on fixed court fees, provided they do not seek consequential delivery of possession.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112: The 3-Judge Bench settled the landmark distinction: where an executant of a deed seeks its cancellation, they must pay ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c); whereas a non-executant seeking a declaration that a deed is void and not binding on them is required to pay only fixed court fee under Schedule II Article 17, unless possession is also sought as consequential relief.
Shailendra Bhardwaj v. Chandra Pal, (2013) 1 SCC 579: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in a suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered instrument, court fees are governed by Section 7(iv)(c) or specific state amendments, and the plaintiff cannot circumvent ad valorem fees by clever drafting.
Nemi Chand v. Edward Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 28: The Supreme Court held that the allegations in the plaint alone determine the class of suit under Section 7, and the court cannot import defense allegations to alter the valuation bracket.

Legal Commentary:

Section 7 is the most heavily litigated section of the Act. Under the authoritative *Suhrid Singh* doctrine, plaintiffs must carefully examine their privity to the contested document: executants must pay ad valorem court fees on the deed consideration, whereas non-executants (e.g., coparceners challenging ancestral alienation) can maintain suits on fixed court fees, provided they do not seek consequential delivery of possession.

Section 7: Computation of fees payable in certain suits

Section 7 of Court Fees Act: Computation of fees payable in certain suits

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 7