Mentoassociates.com – Legal Articles

The Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 regulates the fees payable in courts in the state, to balance justice and financial responsibility. An important provision under the Act is refunds and exemptions from court fees. This aims to remove unnecessary financial burdens and is especially true in cases of repayment, withdrawal or procedural release. The Act also empowers State Government to remit fees either wholly or partially to foster inclusivity and fairness. The percentage of the amount to be refunded differs based on the circumstances, which can be further understood by the below mentioned sections of the Act.

1.  Refund in case of delay in presentation of plaint or delay in payment of court fees (Section 63)

When a plaint or memorandum of appeal (hereafter referred to as only plaint) is rejected on the following grounds

• Delay in re- presentation
• Fee paid on the plaint is deficient and deficiency is not made good within the allowed time granted by the court
• The delay in payment is not condoned and the plaint is rejected consequently.

The amount of one half the total fees, 50%, paid will be refunded on the grounds of delay in presentation of the plaint for the reasons stated above.

Case Law – Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs Willwood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors(India Kanoon) Decided on 19-04-2022

2. Refund in case of remand (Section 64)

When a plaint or memorandum of appeal, which has been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, by the higher court or when a suit is remanded in appeal by the higher court for a fresh decision by the lower court, the court which made the order shall direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Furthermore, when the

• whole decree is reversed, and the suit is remanded or
• if the remand is on second appeal, also on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court

then the court may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.

No refund shall be ordered if the remand was caused due to an error made by the party.

If the order of remand does not cover the whole of the subject matter of the suit, the refund shall not exceed the amount paid originally on that part of the subject matter in respect of the suit that has been remanded.

Case Law – Manish Kumar vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors. ( India Kanoon) Decided  on 19 January 2021

3. Refund where Court reverses or modifies former decision on ground of mistake (Section 65)

If the court makes any mistakes on the face of record and an application for a review of judgment is admitted, and after rehearing the court reverses or modifies its previous decision on that ground, it shall direct the refund to the applicant the amount that exceeds the fees paid to what the needs to be paid, which is applicable in any court. If the amount to be paid rounds up 1000 due to the mistake and the original amount to be paid was 500, the difference that is 500 is the amount that will be refunded.

Case Law – P. N. Eswara Iyer vs The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India decided on 1 February, 1980 (India Kanoon)

4. Refund on settlement before hearing (Section 66)

When the court refers the parties to any of the ADR Methods– Alternate Dispute Resolution, and the dispute is settled, by the means of arbitration, conciliation, negotiation, etc., then seventy five percent of the court fees that was paid is refunded.

Originally only fifty percent of the fees was to be refunded until a recent amendment in the year 2020 which increased it to seventy five percent.

In cases which are not covered by the above-mentioned scenarios, a refund of seventy five percent of the court fees that was paid can be claimed when

• any suit is dismissed as it is settled out of court before evidence is recorded on the merits of claim.
• any suit is compromised on the comprise decree, before evidence is recorded on the merits of claim
• any appeal is disposed of before the commencement of hearing of the appeal

Case Law – Gayathri vs Indira Rajashekar decided on 14 July 2000 (India Kanoon)

5. Refund of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence (Section 67)

According to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, if a court fee is paid by mistake, the court can order a full refund of the fee paid. The plaintiff who paid the fees in error or inadvertence, should be refunded the entire amount paid mistakenly.

Unlike in some situations where a percentage of the court fee might be deducted upon refund, if the payment was clearly a mistake, the full amount should be refunded.

6. Instruments of Partition (Section 68)

If the final decree in a partition suit is engrossed on non-judicial stamps provided by the parties, the court will order a refund of the valued fee paid by the parties. The refund will be equal to the value of the non-judicial stamps provided by the parties.

When people go to court to divide property (a partition suit), they might need to pay a fee for the court process. Later, if the court decides the property division and writes the final decision on special non-judicial stamp paper (a type of official paper required for legal documents), the parties involved in the case might have provided those stamp papers themselves.

If that happens, the court will return to them the amount of money they paid earlier in court fees, equal to the value of the stamp paper they provided. Essentially, they get reimbursed for the cost of those stamp papers.

7. Exemption of certain Documents (Section 69)

Certain documents are exempt from being liable to pay court fees.

• Legal authorizations: written authorizations like mukhtarnama or vakalatnama by Armed Forces personnel, not the ones in civil employment or memorandums filed by advocates in criminal cases.
• Documents in Specific cases: Plaints filed in village courts and applications which are related to land revenue assessment before final confirmation.
• Irrigation and Land use: Applications for irrigation supply or cultivation extension and enhancement of rent or relinquishment of land.
• Witnesses and legal Proceedings: First application for summons of witness or production of evidence. Bail bonds, recognizances, and applications related to criminal proceedings.
• Petitions and Complaints: Petitions concerning offenses filed with police officers or village authorities.
• Forest and Government revenue: Applications related to cutting timber in Government forests.
• Appeals and Compensations against any municipal tax. Applications for compensation under property acquisition laws.
• Marriage and Religious matters: Petitions under Section 48 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
• Records of rights filed with plaints or applications.

8. Power to reduce or remit fees (Section 70)

the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 allows the State Government to reduce or remit all or part of the fees chargeable under the Act. This can be done by a notification in the official Gazette. However, the State Government cannot reduce or remit fees for specific classes of documents or for documents filed by a particular class of people. The remission may be granted based on public interest, financial hardship of litigants, or other justifiable reasons. The provision allows the government to ease the financial burden on litigants in deserving cases, ensuring access to justice for those who might otherwise struggle to afford court fees.

Authored by

ANUPA S

1st Semester BBA LLB (Hons)

Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Bangalore

INTRODUCTION: –

 Choosing between a declarative suit and an injunction suit can often be confusing, as these remedies serve distinct purposes and also differ in their scope and impact.

 A declarative suit seeks a formal declaration from the court regarding the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved. It is not intended to grant damages or enforce any particular course of action. Rather, it clarifies the existing legal relationship, bringing certainty and preventing misunderstandings in the near future. This clarity can avoid the need for lengthy and potentially expensive litigation, saving time and money.

In contrast, an injunction suit seeks a court order to direct a party to either perform or refrain from performing a specific act. It is a proactive remedy, temporary or permanent in nature, intended to prevent ongoing or imminent harm. Compared to declaratory judgment, injunction is often seen as more powerful remedy but its success depends on proving the potential for immediate and irreparable harm.

METHOD

The method used in this research paper is by reviewing a case by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Ready (Dead) by Lrs & Ors dated 2005 March, 2008, (2008) 4 SCC 594.

CASE FINDINGS

In Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Ready (Dead) by Lrs & Ors the Honorable Supreme Court observed the following regarding Bare Injunction, Possession and declaratory reliefs.

In the para11 of the above referred judgment the Honorable Supreme Court held as follows

The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/ or possession, with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly:

1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

• Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

• Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

In para17 of the above referred judgment the Honorable Supreme Court summarizes its findings and held that:

1. Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

• As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

• But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

• Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

The court however clarifies that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff’s title by the defendants or challenge to plaintiff’s title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff’s title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.

CONCLUSION

The chosen case review provides us a great example of how the courts have distinguished between these remedies and assessed their suitability in the specific context. Choosing between a declaratory suit and an injunction suit requires careful consideration of the desired outcomes and the available evidence. Declaratory suits offer the clarity of a formal declaration of rights and obligations, removing uncertainty and paving the way for future action. They are particularly effective in a dispute where the legal relationships are unclear or  in the case of contested titles. However, they lack the immediate action or protection of an injunction. Injunction suits, on the other hand, are potent tools for preventing imminent harm or preserving the status quo. They can swiftly halt ongoing interference or potential future disturbances. However, in order for them to be successful they must make a convincing argument for immediate or irreversible injury. Ultimately, the choice rests on understanding the specific legal issue and the desired result.

REFERENCES

• SCC Online

Authored by

THOMAS K JOSEPH

SLCU, CHRIST DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY

Intern

MENTO ASSOCIATES

With the increasing number of cases, where Indian nationals married in India, trying to get divorce and other matrimonial reliefs from foreign courts, it is interesting to know the legal position regarding the applicability of foreign judgments in India. In normal circumstances, the courts in India treat foreign judgments to be conclusive regarding any matter which is directly adjudicated upon between the same parties. However in the following instances, Indian courts do not recognize foreign judgments.

a) When the foreign judgment is not pronounced by a court of competant jurisdiction.
b) When the judgment is not given based on the merits of the case.
c) When it is based on an incorrect view of International law.
d) When it has not recognized Indian Laws where such laws are applicable.
e) When the proceedings are opposed to natural justice.
f) When it is obtained by fraud.
g) Where it sustains a claim founded in a breach of any law in India.

Article 226 of the constitution confers the High Courts wide powers to issue orders and writs to any person or authority. Before a writ or an order is passed, the party approaching the court has to establish that he has a right and that right is illegally invaded or threatened. High court can issue writ and directions, to any Government, authority or person even beyond its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action partly arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

Wherever questions of facts are involved normally High Court does not exercise its power under article 226.Similary when an alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner, the Courts do not entertain petitions under Article 226.Also when there is an inordinate delay in approaching the court, the court may not give relief acting under this Article.

There are various types of Writs: – Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari. Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution can exercise similar Powers.

The basic idea in conferring powers under Article 226 upon High Court is to see that the rule of law is maintained in the society. The executive Authorities are to be corrected whenever they transgress the limits of their power and encroach upon the rights of the citizen. Violations of human rights, natural rights etc., are instances where the High courts interfere using this powerful article of the constitution.

Caveat is a preventive relief available to citizens. This gives them the immediate intimation from the court whenever an opposite party approaches the Court with some prayer. When an application is made in a suit or proceeding or a proceeding to be instituted, any person claming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such application may lodge a Caveat. A person can avail this right if he anticipates filing of a suit or other proceedings by any other person affecting his interests.

A person lodging a caveat (Caveator) shall serve a notice of the Caveat by registered post, on the person by whom the proceeding may be initiated. After the caveat has been lodged, if any application is filed, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the Caveator.

A Caveat shall remain in force only for ninety days, after which a fresh Caveat can be filed. A caveat cannot be filed in criminal matters.

High Courts exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue writs of Habeas Corpus. It is a writ in the nature of an order calling upon the person who has detained another to produce the latter before the court, in order to let the court know on what ground he has been confined and to set him free if there is no legal jurisdiction for the imprisonment. An application for Habeas Corpus can be filed by the near and dear of the individual detained or even by a stranger or a social worker.

Under Article 226, a petition for Habeas Corpus would lie not only when a person is detained by the state, but also when he is detained by another private individual. The custody of a minor child can be obtained by a rightful parent under a Habeas Corpus proceeding. Similarly, Habeas Corpus is available to a husband to regain the custody of his wife.

Where it is shown that the petitioner was arrested and imprisoned with mischievous and malicious intent, the court shall have the power to compensate the petitioner by awarding suitable monetary compensation or exemplary costs.

To decline to give effect to an order of release passed on an application for Habeas Corpus amounts to contempt of court punishable by imprisonment and attachment.