ACHAMMA Vs. H DHANARAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Judge in I. A. VI in OS 69/89 dated 20-9-1983 urging the following grounds :the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the relief of declaration of the title of the petitioner-plaintiffs for consideration of possession and mesne profits in respect of the properties, both lands and houses described in the schedule thereto and the Court fee payable under Sec. 24 (a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (in short 'the Act') has been correctly paid for the said reliefs. As such there could be no occasion for demanding further court fee on the adjustment of the relief by the parties and pertaining to the subject matter of the suit.

(2.) THE trial Judge has further failed to appreciate and consider that the relief sought for and the payment of Court-fee on the said relief are in conformity with the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The further ground urged is, compromise petition filed by the parties is neither plaint nor written statement therefore, is not a chargeable document hence they are not liable to pay the Court-fee as observed by the trial Judge in the impugned order. The compromise petition filed bythe parties on the basis of which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge would not relate back to the date of institution of the suit, therefore, he is not liable to pay the Court-fee on the amount which was required to be payable by the petitioners as on the date of the institution of the suit. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1994 (3) Kant 1822 : (AIR 1995 Kant 107) in the case of Canara Bank v. Krishna Tubewell. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, the compromise petition filed under Order 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. deciding the scope of the plaint which is an adjustment between the parties which was the subject matter of the suit. Further it is submitted that, petitioners-plaintiffs were in good terms by filing compromise petition to some extent they have given up their title and rights upon the plaint schedule property in favour of the respondent-defendants. This important aspect of the matter is not taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge while directing the further payment of additional Court-fee. Therefore, exercise of power by the trial Judge is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and same is vitiated by law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further relies upon a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1971 Andh Pra 114 on this point.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order passed on I. A. VI. In my opinion, the trial Judge has passed a well considered order by giving cogent and valid reasons in support of the findings arrived at by him and with reference to the law on the question and considering the relevant provisions i. e. Section 7 (2) and Section 24 (a) of the Act. The learned trial Judge has elaborately considered the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners before him. He has examined in detail with reference to the questions raised before him with regard to the payment of additional Court fee as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in the compromise petition.