RAMACHANDRA GAJANANA HEGDE Vs. UANAPATI UMAMAHESHWAR HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether in a suit to recover possession of land on which areca trees are standing the valuation for purposes of court-fee should be under Cl.(b) of S.7(2) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuuation Act, 195S, hereinafter referred to as the Act or under Cl.(d) thereof. The plaintiff paid court-fee under S.7(2) (b) of the Act in the trial Court although he valued the land in question on the basis of the actual market value for purposes of jurisdiction. No objection seems to have been taken in the trial Court regarding payment of Court-fee. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant filed an appeal. When the appeal (CA.No.23/66) was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Karwar, the Court-Fee Examiner during the course of inspection raised objection that the defendant who had filed the appeal should pay court-fee in respect of arecanut gardens under Sec.7(2)(d) of the Act. The learned Civil Judge upheld the objection of the Court-fee Examiner and directed the defendant who was the appellant to pay court-fee according to the actual market value under S.7(2)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant preferred this revision petition. When the matter came up before Govinda Bhat, J., his Lordship referred the case to a Division Bench as he was of the view that the matter involved a substantial question of law.

(2.) There is no dispute that on the land in question arecanut trees are planted and it is also not in dispute that this land formed an entire estate paying annual revenue to Government at a rate settled but not permanently. S.7 of the Act provides for the determination of the market value for purposes of paying court-fee and it reads as follows:

(3.) Sri T.S.Ramachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case contends that the lands in question admittedly fall under S.7(2) (b) and there is no justification to treat them as garden lands and levy court-fee under Cl. (d) . According to him the lands in question are not garden lands. In support of his contention he relied upon a few decisions. The first decision he relied upon is one in Kullappa Goundan v. Abdul Rahim, ILR 40 Mad. 824. In that case on the land in question there were coconut trees. The question was whether the land was a garden within the meaning of that expression under S.7. Court Fees Act (VII of 1870). It may be mentioned here that the scheme of that Section and the present section 33 almost the same Dealing with the question whether the land on which coconut trees were standing was garden, this is what Seshagiri Ayyar, J. said: