SETRA KALAMMA Vs. APPAYANAHALLI CHENNABASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-8-79 passed in M.A. No. 21 of 1978 on the file of the Civil Judge, Hospet, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 6-12-78 passed by the Munsiff, Kudligi, on Issue No. 4, in O. S. No. 277 of 1977, on his file, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordering that the plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that the nomination of an insurance policy in favour of defendant-1 was void and for injunction against the defendants. In that suit, he paid Court fee as contemplated under S. 24(d) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), showing the valuation at Rs. 250. That was objected to and the matter was enquired into and the learned Munsiff held that since the real prayer in the suit was to cancel the nomination by holding it as void, the Court-fee should be paid on the value pertaining to the document viz., the insurance policy. In that view, he directed that the plaint shall be returned for presentation to proper Court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil Judge, Hospet, in M.A. No. 21 of 1978, on his file, and the learned Civil Judge, on hearing, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court, Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that what he has asked for is merely a declaration and, therefore, S. 24(d) of the Act is applicable. In support of his case, he cited a decision in the case of wherein His Lordship the then Chief Justice Venkataramaiya, J. has observed that in a suit for a, declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a certain amount lying in deposit in a treasury in the name of Amildar and for a permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant from withdrawing the same, the plaintiff need not pay anything more than the Court-fee prescribed under S. 24(d) of the Act.