PATTABHI RAMA IYER Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition relates to a question of valuation and court fee. The learned Additional District Judge of Anjikaimal before whom the suit came up for trial heard the issue raised with reference to the question as a preliminary issue and recorded his decision in plaintiffs favour. Defendant 1, at whose instance the issue was dealt with as a preliminary one, feeling dissatisfied with the Trial Courts finding moved this court in revision. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up for disposal referred the petition for decision by a Full Bench. An important question affecting court fee was considered to be involved in it. The two plaintiffs in the suit are made counter petitioners here. Though the Trial Courts decision as to court fee is in their favour and though the decision of the question in a different way will not affect the jurisdiction of the District Court to try the suit no point was raised before us on their behalf as to the propriety of this court interfering with the order in revision. It was however strenuously argued on their side that the order is right on the merits.

(2.) Originally there was only one plaintiff and hereafter he will be referred to as the plaintiff. He is a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law. The plaint sought to have a partition arrangement carried out under the terms of a previous compromise decree reversed and to bring into hotchpot, for the purpose of making a fresh division, the properties which under the previous arrangement went to defendants 1 to 3 and also to have a one-fourth share of those properties delivered to the plaintiff for and on behalf of his branch of the family. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the previous decree but he was eo nomine a party thereto. His father who is defendant 4 in this suit represented him as guardian ad litem. Under the terms of the compromise decree the plaintiffs branch received Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of its share in the joint family properties and all moveable and immoveable properties of the joint family went to defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff claims a declaration that the previous decree and all proceedings pursuant thereto are invalid, or in other words that they should all be set aside, the defendants 1 to 3 should be made to account for all profits received by them since the prior partition arrangement came into being, that a fresh partition should be affected and the one fourth share due to his branch should be delivered to him and that pending the decision of the suit defendants 1 to 3 should be restrained by an injunction from alienating the plaint properties, that is the properties they obtained under the previous partition arrangement. The relief for setting aside the decree is valued in the plaint at Rs. 100/- the relief for rendition of account at Rs. 200/- the relief for partition at Rs. 2000/- and the relief by way of injunction at Rs. 50/- and court fee of Rs. 7-8-0, Rs. 15/-, Rs. 10/- and Rs. 3-12-0 are paid respectively thereon. That is ad valorem court fee has been paid on all reliefs except that as to partition; in respect thereof the fixed fee of Rs. 10/- under Art. 7(v) of Schedule 2 of the Cochin Court Fees Act II of 1080 has been paid.

(3.) The plea that defendant 1 raised before the lower court as to valuation and court fee was that as the plaintiff was eo nomine a party to the prior decree to have the same set aside he should have valued the plaint and paid court fee on the value of the decree. An alternative contention raised was that as possession of a one-fourth share was asked for the plaint should at least have been valued at and court fee paid, on the value of that share. By the time the question came to be argued before the lower court an additional plaintiff was also impleaded and between the two plaintiffs several answers to the contentions of defendant 1 were given. It is unnecessary for our purpose to recount them here; suffice it to say that the learned Judge in the court below treated the plaint as one in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree, where consequential relief is prayed for. According to him the suit therefore fell under S. 4(iv)(c) of the Cochin Court Fees Act and he held that in such suits it was for the plaintiff to state the amount at which he values the reliefs sought and that the court could not revise such valuation. The learned Judge purports to follow the decisions in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Dharmaraja Bhagavathar 17 Cochin Law Reports 389 and Krishnan Elayath v. Vareed 29 Cochin Law Reports 453. The concluding words of the learned Judges order read thus: