NARAYANI AMMA Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition relates to court fee.

(2.) Prayer A in the plaint is that the plaintiff be declared the sole heir of Achuthan Nair after his death and that the documents mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint, which have been brought into existence by the fraud of the defendants to show otherwise, be declared null and void. Prayer B is to the effect that, if necessary, the aforesaid documents may be cancelled. For relief covered by prayer A the plaintiff has paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 10/- for declaration. She has also valued that relief at Rs. 10,000/-. Relief B has been valued at Rs. 100/-and ad valorem court fee thereon has also been paid. The learned Subordinate Judge has said that relief B, being a consequential relief consequent on prayer A, should have been valued at Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff has been directed to pay court fee on Rs. 10,000/- for relief B.

(3.) Mr. T. S. Venikteswara Iyer, the learned counsel of the petitioner, points out that the valuation of Rs. 10,000/- in prayer A is not for the purpose of court fee, but only for the purpose of jurisdiction. He also urges that the valuation for the purpose of court fee need not be the same as the valuation for jurisdiction. In support of this contention he invites my attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court. In the matter of the Court Fees Act and Kalipada Mukharjee (AIR 1930 Calcutta 686), wherein Rankin C. J. observes that the meaning of S.8, Suits Valuation Act, is that the value for purpose of jurisdiction shall follow the value to be given for purpose of court fee, not vice versa. This contention of the learned counsel appears to be sound. He further invites my attention to two decisions of the Madras High Court, namely Krishna Mallar v. The Secretary for States for India (1914 MWN 767) and M. Ayimuddin Sahib v. S. E. S. Kadirsa Rowther (1918 MWN 40). Both these cases arose prior to the amendment of the Court Fees Act in Madras by the addition of S.7(iv-A) and these cases therefore apply to the present case, where the position is analogous. In those cases the learned Judges held that in such cases the plaint should have been returned for amendment, so that the plaintiff might elect on a single valuation for both purposes, namely jurisdiction and court fee, as required by law. In this case also the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in pinning down the plaintiff to the value of Rs. 10,000/- given in prayer A, which is obviously for purpose of jurisdiction.