Court–Fees Act, 1870

 

Court–Fees
Act, 1870

[VII of
1870]

 

Section 6(2) –

An appellate
Court is perfectly within its power to direct the appellant to pay deficit
court fees within the time fixed by it and in default to reject the appeal.

District
Primary Education Officer vs Jaynal Abedin 40 DLR 328.

 

Section 6(2) –

The
enlargement of time contemplated under section 148 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and under section 6(2) of the Court–fees Act has no application in
the instant case where the statute fixed the period of time which a court can
give for compliance, imposing a positive bar against granting time exceeding 21
days as provided under rule 11 Order VII of the Code.

Abdul Aziz
vs Tafazzal Hossain and another 50 DLR 487.

 

Section 7(iii)–

Suit being
for movable property having a market value governed by section 7(iii)–Ad valorem
court fee payable.

Nowab Askari
Jute Mulls Ltd vs Giasuddin Ahmed 41 DLR 144.

 

Sections 7(iii) and 7(IV)(d)–

It was not a
suit for simple injunction as provided in section 7(IV) (d) of the Court–fees
Act nor for movable property having no market value as provided in the
enumeration under section 7(1V) but a suit for recovery of a launch which has a
market value.

Nawab Askari
Jute Mills Ltd vs Giasuddin Ahmed 41 DLR 144.

 

Section 7(IV)–

Valuation of
suit by plaintiff– Court should look to the framing of the suit to find its
substance, its real nature.

Nawab Askari
Jute Mills Ltd vs Giasuddin Ahmed 41 DLR 144.

 

Section 7(IV)(C)–

Ad–valorem
fees to be paid for cancellation of a document.

Sufia Khanom
vs Faizun Nessa 39 DLR (AD) 46.

 

Sections 7(1V)(C) and 8C–

In a suit
for declaration of title to property and perpetual injunction where the reliefs
claimed are substantial according to the construction of the plaint by the
Court, payment of Court fees will be made according to the valuation as
determined by the Court–plaintiff’s own valuation will not be acceptable.

Khalkur
Rahaman vs Syed Asan Ali 40 DLR 292.

 

Section 7(1V)(C) & (Vl–A)–

In a suit
for partition and recovery of possession the plaintiff is to pay ad valorem court–fee
on the value of his share property but prays for declaration of his title and
partition then also he is to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of his share
of the suit as partition in such a suit is a consequential relief to the prayer
for declaration of title in his share of the suit property as in the present
suit.

Mahamudul Hoque
and 5 others vs Nowab Ali Chowdhury and 18 others 49 DLR 92.

 

Section 71V(C) and (VI–A)–

A simple
suit for partition is to be filed with a fixed court–fee when the plaintiff
asserts that he is in possession of the property. But when a suit is filed for
partition and for recovery of possession then he is required to pay ad valorem court–fee
on a value of his share of the suit property. Even if the plaintiff claims to
be in possession of his share of the suit property but he prays for declaration
of his title and partition then also he is required to pay ad valorem court–fee
on the: value of his share of the suit property.

Mahmudul Huq
and others vs Nowab Ali Chowdhury and others 49 DLR 405.

 

Sections 7(XI), 8C & 8D–

Section
7(Xl) of the Court–fees Act provides an objective standard for valuation of a
suit for eviction of a monthly tenant by the landlord. In such a case, the
subjective satisfaction of the plaintiff is of no avail.

Didar Ali
and others vs Naziur Rahman 50 DLR 451.

 

Section 8(b)–

In a suit
for declaration of title and confirmation of possession the plaintiff is bound
to pay ad valorem Court–fee.

Sufia Akhtar
Khanam vs Salema Akhtar Khanam 46 DLR 198.

 

Section 8(c)–

Determination
of valuation of the suit–The court is to hold an enquiry and determine the
valuation where there is objective standard of valuation of the suit. The
objective standard of valuation is the consideration money of the kabala or the
market price. There is no embargo on the enquiry to be made on the valuation in
the absence of written statement in a suit where objection has been raised
regarding the valuation and where objective standard for valuation is
available. The enquiry is to be made after giving sufficient opportunity to the
concerned parties.

Ahmed Kabir
vs Haji Mazahar Ahmed 43 DLR 500.

 

Section 8C–

Duty of the
Court to hold inquiry to determine correct valuation where objective standard
of valuation is available.

Nawab Askari
Jute Mills Ltd vs Giasuddin Ahmed 41 DLR 144.

 

Section 8C–

Deciding a
preliminary issue on valuation–in the present case the objective standard of
valuation being available and the question of jurisdiction being involved, the
munsif committed an error of law in not deciding the question of valuation and
in putting off the matter to be decided with other issues.

Shaukat Hossain
vs Abdul Hakim 42 DLR 508.

 

Section 8C–

Valuation of
suit– Issue regarding valuation–Acceptance of valuation given by the
plaintiff–Whether Court is bound to hold enquiry to revise the valuation given
by the plaintiff while deciding issue regarding valuation when the trial of the
suit already commenced without any evidence merely relying on the valuation in
the sale deeds filed. The Court is not bound to hold enquiry regarding
valuation on the mere seeking of the defendants and the Court in its discretion
may accept the valuation given by the plaintiff in the plaint if the same
appears to be reasonable to the Court. In a summary enquiry regarding valuation
unless the Court finds that the valuation given by the plaintiff is grossly
undervalued the Court in its discretion does not interfere.

Abul (Md)
Kashem vs Ashrafuzzaman 43 DLR 596.

 

Section 8C –

The
defendants at the earliest opportunity raised the question of undervaluation of
the suit and, as such, a specific issue to that effect ought to have been
framed.

Abdus Samad
and others vs Md Gafur and others 56 DLR 297.

 

Section 19 –

No order for
probate or letters of administration can be granted unless a valuation of the
property is given as set forth in the 3rd Schedule of the Act. The application
that is filed in a probate proceeding is in the nature of a Miscellaneous
judicial proceeding and Taka 10 is required as Court–fees in Memo of Appeal.

Golak
Chandra Roy vs Niva Guha Roy 40 DLR 382.

 

Section 35A–

Section 35A
remains opera­tive and its provision is not inconsistent with Schedule 1 of
1981.

Sonali Bank
vs Abdur Rashid 39 DLR (AD) 207.

 

Section 35A–

Is it
possible to hold that the Legislature was not aware of section 35A while
amending the Schedule? According to rules of construction, it must be presumed
that the Legislature is in full knowledge of all existing statutes on the
subject when it makes or repeals any law.

Sonali Bank
vs Abdur Rashid 39 DLR (AD) 207.

 

Section 35A–

An implied
repeal will be held only when two statutes cannot stand together.

Sonali Bank
vs Abdur Rashid 39 DLR (AD) 207.

 

Section 35A–

Reference to
Schedule l of 1960 in section 35A must be construed as reference to Schedule 1
of 1981.

Sonali Bank
vs Abdur Rashid 39 DLR (AD) 207.

 

Section 35A–

The
contention that there is prohibition as to levy of court–fee beyond Taka 15,000
is not acceptable to the court.

Sonali Bank
vs Abdur Rashid 39 DLR (AD) 207.

 

Article 11 of Schedule 1–

Rule 773 of
Civil Rules and Orders speaks that application for revocation of probate and
letters of administration should be treated in the same manner as an
application for probate or letters of administration.

Golak
Chandra Roy vs Neva Rani Guha Roy 40 DLR 382.

 

Article 17 (VA) of Schedule II–

A simple
suit for partition is to be filed with a fixed court ­fee when the plaintiff
asserts that he is in possession of the property. But when a suit is filed for
partition and for recovery of possession then he is required to pay ad–valorem
court–fee on a value of his share of the suit property. Even if the plaintiff
claims to be in possession of his share of the suit property but he prays for
declaration of his title and partition then also he is required to pay ad
valorem court–fee on the value of his share of the suit property.

Mahmudul Huq
and others vs. Nowab Ali Chowdhury and others 49 DLR 405.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.