Except in the Courts hereinbefore mentioned, no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule to this Act annexed 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 of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.
Where appeal is insufficiently stamped, it would not be considered validly presented. Any interim order passed in appeal would be void. Harnam Singh v. Harbhajan Singh, AIR 1992 SC 109:1992 Supp (1) SCC 709.
In case of insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal, opportunity must be given to the appellant to pay the deficient Court fee. Dismissal of appeal without giving opportunity to appeal held improper. Appeal restored. Mohammad Mahibulla v. Seth Chaman Lal, AIR 1993 SC 1241:1992(1) MPWN 7 (SC).
Deficiency in Court fee in respect of plaint can be made good during the appellate stage. Appeal in continuation of suit and the power of the appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the trial Court. What could be done by the trial Court in the proceeding of the suit, can always be done by the appellate Court in the interest of justice. Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh, AIR 2015 SC 242: (2014) 10 SCC 702.
The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:—
(i) For money.—in suits for money (including suits for damages or of compensation, or arrears of maintenances, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically)—according to the amount claimed;
(ii) For maintenance and annuities.—in suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically—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 movable property having a market value.—in suits for movable property other than money, where the subject matter has 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.—for movable property where the subject matter has no market value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title;
(b) * * *
(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.—to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed;
(d) for an injunction.—to obtain an injunction;
(e) for easements.—For a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and;
(f) for accounts.—For accounts—according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal with a minimum fee of Forty rupees.
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought;
Where subject matter is land, and—
(a) such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land—twenty times the land revenue so assessed or so payable;
(b) such land forms a part of land which is assessed to land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is payabletwenty times of the land revenue— proportionately worked out for such part of land;
(c) such land is not assessed to land revenue—twenty times of the land revenue worked out at the rate of five rupees per acre;
(vi) To enforce a right of pre-emption.—In suits to enforce a right of pre-emption—according to the value of the subject-matter as specified in the document furnishing the.cause'of action for such right and where there is no such document or^where the plaintiff claims to pre-empt for a fair consideration, on the value of the subject-matter as stated in the plaint:.
Provided that where the value of the subject matter determined by the court exceeds the value stated in the plaint the decree shall not be executed until the difference, between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable on the value of the subjectmatter as determined by the court shall have been paid;
(vi-a) In suits for partition.—
(a) according to one-half of the value of the plaintiff's share of the property; and
(b) according to the full value of such share if on the date of presenting the plaint the plaintiff is out of possession of the property of which he claims to be a co-parcener or coowner, and his claim to be a co-parcener or co-owner oh such date is denied.
(vii) For interest of assignee of land revenue.—In suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue—fifteen times his net profits as such for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint;
(viii) To set aside an attachment.—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 :
Provided that, where such amount exceeds the value of the land or interest, the amount of fee shall be computed as if the suit were for the possession of such land or interest;
(ix) (a) In suits against a mortgage for the recovery of the property mortgaged.—according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage; and
(b) In suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, or where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute.—according to the amount claimed as due at the date of presenting the plaint.
(x) For specific performance.—In suits for specific performance
(a) of a contract of sale—according to the amount of the consideration;
(b) of contract of mortgage—according to the amount agreed to be secured;
(c) of a contract of lease—according to the aggregate amount of the fine or. premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term;
(d) of an award—according to the amount or value of the property in dispute;
(xi) Between landlord and tenant.—In the following suits between landlord and tenant:—
(a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease,
(b) to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy,
(c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease,
(cc) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy,
(d) to contest a notice of ejectment,
(e) to recover the occupancy of immovable 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 immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.
Section 7 states various processes by which the values in different suits are to be ascertained and after ascertainment, schedule applies the proper court fees to these values . Section 7 is only computing section and court fee to be payable on cases falling u/s.7 has to be looked for in Sch. I and II court fee is to be determined in the first instance on the plaint averments.
It is the only section which applies to all cases, documents, papers and deals with the mode of computing the Court fees payable in various classes of the suits and on various papers and documents. It generally applies only where an ad valorem Court fee is payable. This section is not a charging section but only a computing section. This section broadly speaking contemplates three modes of valution of the subject matter of a suit, i.e. :-
(1) market value,
(2) artificial value based on certain principles, and
(3) plaintiffs declaration about value.
Where the plaintiff claimed for reliec oc avoidance from liability, sucjh a scse comes under Section 7 (iv) (c) and not under Art. 17 of Sch. II. Ad valorem court fee is payable on the amont of liability sought to be avoided. Mangal Jain v. M.P. State Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others, 1977 (2) MPWMN 480.
The payment of Court Fees cannot be decided by the parties. It is a question between the plaintiff and Government through Court and such a question can even be considered after the case has been decided. If on a suit Court Fees is paid less, such suit cannot be dismissed without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay remaining Court Fees. Smt. Shanti Devi Shanna v. Radheyshyam Falod, 2000 (2) MPLJ 331.
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of certain amount as damages—Court fee to be paid on amount of damages claimed. Jagroop Singh Brar v. Branch Manager, AIR 2009 (NOC) P & H 949. Plaintiff claiming specific amount of money as damages ad valorem Court fee under Section 7 (i) is payable. Jiwan Kumar Modi v. Nand Kishore Bhandari, 2014 (1) ICC (P and H) 437.
Suit for mesne profits—preliminary decree followed by final decree—appeals from both the decrees—on appeal from decree, full Court fee paid—no court fee to be paid on appeal from preliminary decree. AIR 1957 HP 16.
Suit filed by a person seeking partition and possession in a joint property even if he is not in possession of any part of it, fixed court fees is payable. Rajiv Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2015) Punj LR 191 (P & H).
Plaintiff seeking relief for declaration and consequential relief of injunction has to pay ad valorem court fees as per S. 7 (iv) (c). Ram Prasad Agrawal v. Bhagwandas, 2003 (4) MPLJ 88. Where no consequential relief is sought, claim is not required to be valued as per S. 7(iv)(c), ad valorem court fee is not payable. Ramesh Chandra S/o Gopikrishanji Rathi v. Jayendrasingh S/o Mansingh Rajput, 2003 (1) MPLJ 379.
In a suit for injunction S. 7 (iv) (d) will apply. Sabina v. Mohd. Abdul Wasim, AIR 1997 MP 25.
In a suit for permanent injunction amount of court fee shall not exceed Rs. 500/-. Saurabh Soni v. M/s. S. and P. Infrastructure Developers (P.) Ltd., AIR 2015 (NOC) 1018 (Alld).
In a suit for mandatory injunction to hand over possession. Court fee would be payable u/s. 7 (iv) (d). Abdul Hussain v. Mansoor Ali, 2009 (4) MPLJ 672.
The court fee does not become payable on arising of cause of action, it is payable only on preferring of claim in court. Dinaji v. Jiwanlal, AIR 1981 MP 36 :1980 MPLJ 801:1981 JLJ 73.
But where the land involved was in possession of plaintiff and the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of his right, held that court fees payable as per Art. 17 of Sch. II and not under Section 7 (iv) (c). Ganpat and others v. Surajbai and others, 1978 (1) MPWN 5.
Where the son filed suit for declaration that he is not bound by mortgage decree obtained against his father held ad valorem court fees is payable under Section 7 (iv) (c). Smt Ratanbai v. Mangilal, 1980 (I) MPWN 220.
Where the plaintiff was a party to the sale deed and his allegation was that his signatures were obtained by misleading him by fraud and misrepresentation, although relief sought was for cancellation of stale-deed but in substance relief was for declaration, so court fees for declaration was sufficient. Johan Ram v. Dasmatbai, 1982 MPWN 464.
Where suit was filed for declaration and injunction, relief of injunction was not consequential. In such cases court fees will be payable after separating evaluating relief. Babu Khan v. Allu, 1984 MPWN 189.
Where suit was for declaration and relief of injunction on was added subsequently held ad valorem court fees would not be payable. Raipur Development Authority v. Dr. S. K. Ahuja, 1984 MPWN 320.
Where suit was filed for declaring marriage null and void and injunction was sought for restraining defendant from enforcing rights of wife. Held relief of injunction is not consequential. Usha Singhai v. Nirmal Kumar Singhai, 1983 MPWN 15.
Where the plaintiff had prayed for declaratory decree, fixed court fees under Sch. II, Art. 17 (3) is payable and not ad valorem Court fees under Section 7 (iv) (c). Ashok Kumar v. Grih Nirman, 1985 MPWN 538.
Where avoidance or cancellation of sale deed is not sought, fixed court fees under Sch. II Art. 17 (3) is payable, ad valorem court fees is not payable. Mai Chand v. Shri Chand, 1986 (1) MPWN 184.
Plaintiff filed suit that in collusion with certain persons, sale deed came to be executed (misrepresenting that it was necessary for proper management of land). It was allegation of the plaintiff that no consideration was paid. Executant was old, Sick and infirm person, as such sale-deed is wholly void, so relief of setting aside such sale is neither necessary nor implicit in the relief of declaration—in such a case court fee would not be payable under Section 7(iv) (c). Linmat Jagannath Sahu v. Purushottam, 1985 MPLJ 748:1985 JLJ 747.
In suits for accounts plaintiff is entitled to put his own estimate and value the claim according. Purushottambhai v. Natwarlal, 1984 MPLJ 40 (SN).
Where suit was for accounts and partition valuation was put by plaintiff and accordingly court fees was paid. Held such a valuation should be accepted generally. Sujeet Keshav Naik v. Sujit Ganesh Naik, 1992 (1) MPWN 143 (SC).
Where valuation put by plaintiff was totally unreasonable—held in such case court may direct plaintiff to correct his valuation after considering on the basis of valuation put by plaintiff. Sharat Chandra v. Chandra Kala and others, 1977 (2) MPWN 52.
Where suit was brought by plaintiff for possession of temple and its property—held that for relief of possession of temple court fees would be payable under Sch. II Art. 17 (vi) and for relief of possession of property of temple separate court fees* would be payable according to Section 7 (v). Gangadhar Kavi v. Radha Vallabhji, 1983 MPWN 578.
Where plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract and possession of property, it was held that court fees is payable according to Section 7 (x). Sewakram Swarankar v. Maksudan Prasad, 1980 (2) MPWN 218.
Where case was instituted by Public Trust for declaration that Trust (plaintiff) had right over temple and its property. Temple which was dedicated only for religious functions, such temple has no market value, so ad valorem Court fees would not be payable. Suit was for taking possession for worship and management of temple, held such case comes under Sch. II Art. 17 (6). Ramsingh v. Shri Rajeev Lochan Trust, 1991 JLJ 471: 1991 MPLJ 863.
Where plaintiff instituted suit for possession of tractor-trolley, held, ad valorem court fees would be payable under Section 7 (iv) (c). Kacharulal v. State Bank of Indore, 1989 (1) MPWN 124.
Where truck was in possession of plaintiff and relief of injunction sought by plaintiff was not consequential relief under Section 7 (iv) (c) and ad valorem Court fees would not be payable. Case comes under Sch. II Art. 17 (3) and fixed court fees is payable. Balwant Singh v. Nandlal, 1987 JLJ 560.
Suit for cancellation of sale deed—suit would be valued according to valuation of sale deed and ad valorem court fees would be payable on such amount. Laxmi Narain v. Dariaobai, 1997 (1) MPWN 72.
In suit for declaration of title and injunction—plaintiff sought injunction in view of established possession, not as consequential relief—for valuation of relief of injunction section 7 (iv) (d) will be applicable and in relation to payable court fees for declaration, Sch. II Art. 17 would apply. Sabina v. Abdul Vasit, 1997 (1) MPLJ 554:1997 (1) JLJ 105.
For the purposes of payment of Court fees, statements made in plaint are relevant. M.P. Electricity Board v. Kamla Sharma, 2003 (4) MPLJ 233.
In suit for relief of declaration and relief of consequential injunction ad valorem Court fees is payable. Ram Prasad Agrawal v. Bhagwandas, 2003 (4) MPLJ 88.
Where consequential relief has not been sought suit will not be required to be valued in accordance with Section 7 (iv) (c)—ad valorem court fees is not payable. Ramesh Chandra v. Jayendra Singh, 2003 (1) MPLJ 379.
Suit for injunction for avoiding payment of certain amount—ad valorem court fees would be payable on valuation of suit. Nagar Palika Raghogarh v. Gas Authority of India Ltd., 2005 (3) MPLJ 530.
The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.
Where in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appellant was - avoiding payment of higher compensation awarded by reference Court, ad valorem Court fee on amount sought to be avoided is payable. Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh, AIR 1995 SC 1828:1995 Supp. (3) SCC 25:1995 JLJ 724 (SC).
In appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ad valorem Court Fee is payable. Damri v. Mst Gallibai, 1997(1) MPWN 149.
Claimant cannot claim and or be granted higher compensation as he valued and restricted his claim to the extent the Court fees were paid. M. Govinda Raju v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 5 SCC 547.
A cross-objection by a respondent in an appeal is a memorandum of appeal in substance though not in form; ad valorem Court fee is payable thereon. Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar, AIR 1971 SC 1887.
If the Court sees reasonk to think that the annual nett profits or the market value of any such land, house or garden as is mentioned in section 7, paragraphs 5 and 6, have or has been wrongly estimated, the court may, for the purpose of computing the fee payable in any suit therein mentioned, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary, and to report thereon to the court.
(i) If in the result of any such investigation the Court finds that the nett profits or market value have or has been wrongly estimated, the Court, if the estimation has been excessive, may in its discretion refund the excess paid as such fee; but if the estimation has been insufficient, the Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the said market value or nett profits been rightly estimated.
(ii) In such cases the suit shall be stayed until the additional fee is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.
When the appellate Court finds that full Court-fee has not been paid on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal, it is authorised to demand additional Court fee on the plaint from the plaintiff only; such-a demand from the appellant would be illegal; the appellant is liable only for the deficit of Court fee on the appeal; and the Court cannot dismiss the appeal before the expiry of the time allowed to the appellant for making up the deficiency. Chandrika Prasad Shanker Dutta v. Kanchan Shivbhajan, 1979 MPLJ 476: 1979 JLJ 441.
In suits for mesne profits or For immovable property and mesne profits for an account if the profits or amount decreed are or is in excess of the profits claimed or the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief sought, the decree shall not be executed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or amount so decreed shall have been paid to the proper officer.
Where the amount of mesne profits is left to be ascertained in the course of the execution of the decree, if the profits so ascertained exceed the profits claimed, the further execution of the decree shall be stayed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.
Under this Section the Court fee is to be paid on the amount of mesne profits decreed before the decree is executed; any amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff during the suit's pendency has to be given credit when the ultimate decree is passed; and the Court fee will be payable only on the amount ultimately decreed and not on the amount ■ paid prior to the decree. Shyamcharan v. Sheojee Bhai, AIR 1971 MP 120:1971 MPLJ 78: 1971 JLJ 130.
Rent deposited by tenant during ejectment case under Section 5 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955 or under Section 13(1) of Act 13 of 1961, if plaintiff takes refund of rent, payment of court fees is not essential. Kailash Narayan v. Mangilal, 1978 (1) MPWN 446.
(i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit.
(ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a court of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of Section 10, paragraph II, shall apply.
The finality attached to the trial Court's decision under Section 12 does not stand in the plaintiff's way to question the decision's correctness. Nemi Chand v. Edward Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 28.
Under this section the High Court has the jurisdiction to determine the amount of Court fees to be paid and that includes the jurisdiction to set aside the Taxing Officer's order as well. State of M.P. v. Prabhu Dayal s/o Badri Prasad, 1971 MPLJ 757.
No revision lies at the instance of the defendant on the question of Court fee determined by the trial Court, as the question of Court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court. A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738.
If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be received or if a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in section 351 of the same Code for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the appellant a certificate, authorising him to receive back from the Collector Hor by way of electronic transfer in such manner as may be prescribed,] the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal:
Provided that if, in the case of a remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not cover the whole of the subject-matter of the suit the certificate so granted shall not authorise the appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on the part or parts of such subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded.(1. Inserted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018.)
When order of refund of court fees can be made—where case had been dismissed by trial court after hearing arguments on preliminary issues—held court fees paid on memorandum of appeal shall be refunded under Section 13. Ram Narain v. Gowardhan Nath, 1982 MPWN 317.
Where in second appeal case was remanded for complying with the provisions of law, in such cases court fees shall be refunded. Shankar Lal v. Shankar Lal, 1991 (1) MPWN 165.
As appeals were remanded, direction was given to issue certificate of refund of Court fees to appellants. Shankuntala Devi v. Land Acquisition Officer, Satna-Rewa Railway Link Project, Rewa, 2008(1) MPLJ 645:2009(1) JLJ 198 : 2008(2) MPHT 481.
Court fees can be refunded only under this provision. Where appeal is withdrawn. Court fees cannot be returned. M/s. Rajee Enterprises v. State Bank of India, 1998(2) MPWN 133.
Court cannot order refund of Court fee to a party on the mere ground that subsequently the party has withdrawn the proceedings. Premlal v. Smt. Basanti Bai Kesharwani, AIR 2009 (NOC) 716 (Chh).
Where an application for a review of judgment is presented on or after the thirtieth day from the date of the decree, the court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant's laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector x[or by way of electronic transfer in such manner as may be prescribed,] so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would have been payable had it been presented before such day.
(1. Inserted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018)
Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted, and where, on the rehearing, the Court reverses or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake in law or fact, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector 1[or by way of electronic transfer in such manner as may be prescribed,] so much of the fee paid on the application to such Court under the second schedule to this Act No. 1, 2[clause (b) or clause (e) of clause (f)]. (1. Inserted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018.) (2. Substituted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018, for the words and symbol "clause (b) or clause (d)")
(1. Inserted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018)
(2. Substituted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018, for the words and symbol "clause (b) or clause (d)").
But nothing in the former part' of this section shall entitle the applicant to such certificate where the reversal, or modification is due, wholly or in part to fresh evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing.
Where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorising him to receive back fromthe Collector 2[or by way of electronic transfer in such manner as may be prescribed,] the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.]
(1. Inserted by Central Act No. 46 of 1999, w.e.f. 1-7-2002.)
(2. Inserted by Chhattisgarh Act No. 3 of 2018, w.e.f. 16-1-2018.)
Where matter is settled in compromise between the parties and the suit is dismissed as per compromise, the trial Court ought to have issued direction for refund of Court fees. High Court directed refund of Court fee. Vipin Trivedi v. Mohanlal Shama, 2012(1) MPLJ 96: 2011(5) MPHT 102 (MP)
In a writ petition under Art. 226 more than one person may join and seek similar relief. But where relief prayed each of the petitioners is based on separate and diputed cause of action, each petitioner shall be required to pay separate Court fee. Rakesh Gautam v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 170.
When the first or only examination of a person who complains of the offence of wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint, or of any offence other than an offence for which police officers may arrest without a warrant, and who has not already presented a petition on which a fee has been levied under this Act, is reduced to writing under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant shall pay a fee of two rupees, unless the Court thinks fit to remit such payment.
Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee:
(i) Power of attorney to institute or defend a suit when executed by a member of any of the Armed Forces of the Union not in civil employment. (The word "by a member of any of the Armed Forces of the Union" are inserted by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, which have come into force on 26-1-1960).
(ii) **
(iii) Written statements called for by the Courts after the first hearing
of a suit
(iv)***
(v) Plaints in suits tried by Village Munsifs in the Presidency of Fort St. George.
(vi) Plaints and processes in suits before District Panchayat in the same presidency.
(vii) Plaints in suits before Collectors under Madras Regulation XII of 1816.
(viii) Probate of a will, letters of administration and save as regards debts and securities, a certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, where the amount or value of the property in respect of which the probate or letters or certificate shall be granted does not exceed one thousand rupees.
(ix) Application or petition to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land revenue, or to a Board of Revenue, or a Commissioner of Revenue, relating to matters connected with the assessment of land or ascertainment of rights thereto or interests therein, if presented previous to the final confirmation of such settlement.
(x) Application relating to supply for irrigation of water belonging to . Government.
(xi) Application for leave to extend cultivation, or to relinquish land, when presented to an officer of land revenue by a person holding,' under direct engagement with Government, land of which the revenue is settled, but not permanently.
(xii) Application for service of notice of relinquishment of land or of enhancement of rent
(xiii) Written authority to an agent to distrain.
(xiv) First application (other than a petition containing a criminal charge or information for the summons of a witness or other person to attend either to give evidence or to produce a document or in respect of the production or filing of an exhibit not being an affidavit made for the immediate purpose of being produced in Court.
(xv) Bail bonds in criminal cases, recognizances to prosecute or to give evidence, and recognizances for personal appearances or otherwise.
(xvi) Petition, application charge or information respecting any offence when presented, made or laid to or before a police officer, or to or before the Heads of Villages or the Village Police in the territories respectively subject to the Governors in Council of Madras and Bombay.
(xvii) Petition by a prisoner, or other person in duress or under restraint of any Court or its officers.
(xviii) Complaint of a public servant (as defined in the Indian Penal Code), a municipal officer, or an officer or servant of a Railway Company.
(xix) Application for permission to cut timber in Government forests, or otherwise relating to such forests.
(xx) Application for the payment of money due by the Government to the applicant.
(xxi) Petition of appeal against the Chaukidari assessment under Act No. XX of 1856, or against any municipal tax.
(xxii) Applications for compensation under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of property for public purposes.
(xxiii) Petitions presented to the Special Commissioner appointed under Bengal Act No. 2 of 1869 (to ascertain, regulate and record certain tenures in Chotta Nagpur).
(xxiv) Petitions under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, Sections 45 and 48.