M UDHAYA BHANU Vs. VASANTHA ANIRUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the writ petitioners seek review of my common judgments in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed for quashing Ex.P4 order in WP(C) No. 24366 of 2004 and Ext.P5 order in WP(C) No. 30592 of 2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge respectively in O.S. Nos. 107/01 and 422/02. Both these orders were passed on preliminary issues raised in the suit regarding the maintainability of the suit and the propriety of valuation and sufficiency of court fees. The suits were filed primarily against the respondents herein who were legal representatives of one G. Aniruddhan, a Government Contractor. The case of the plaintiffs was that Sri. Aniruddhan was indebted to them and that upon the demise of Sri. Aniruddhan all his rights and liabilities devolved upon the respondents being his legal heirs and representatives. It is averred in both the suits that Sri. Aniruddhan was indebted to several other creditors also and therefore repayment could not be realised from the defendants immediately. The petitioners came to know that the respondents defendants were making demands to screen the assets which they had inherited from Sri. Aniruddhan was made on the defendants but without success. Making such averments the suits were filed seeking substantially the following prayers.

(2.) The suits had been valued under Section 39 read with Section 16 of the Suits Valuation Act as administration suits falling within the ambit of Rule 13 of Order 20 C.P.C. However, in the suits, precise amounts had been claimed to be due to the plaintiffs from late Sri. Aniruddhan. The learned Subordinate Judge on considering the preliminary issues under the orders which were impugned in the writ petitions found that the suits were not maintainable since they had not been properly valued. According to the learned Sub Judge since precise amounts were claimed to be due to them from the estate of Sri. Aniruddhan it was obligatory that the suits be amended and court fee ad valorem be paid under Section 22 for the amounts claimed. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the judgment of this court in Brothers Chitty Fund v. Jacob Mathew, for the view he had taken in the impugned orders and I under my common judgment presently sought to be reviewed referred to that judgment the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Vijayarajan v. Kalavatty, and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Rahim v. Lingappa Vaijappa,1943 30 AIR(Bom) 273 and held that the Subordinate Judge s view had considerable support of the judgments oi this court in Brothers Chitty Fund s case and in Vijayarajan s case. It was accordingly held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to institute an administration suit without any scope for enquiry as to what is the amount due to them from the estate of the deceased debtor Aniruddhan. Nevertheless, I also held that the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that an administration suit is not maintainable in law is wrong. I held that administration suits are contemplated in law and will be maintainable in law. But whether such suits should be decreed directing appointment of administrator or receiver is a matter to be decided on the basis of the legal evidence which comes on record in the suit. I therefore disposed of the writ petitions permitting the petitioners to file application for amendment of the suits in any manner they needed, so that they will be able to maintain the suit as administration suits not only in law but also on facts, so that they can aspire for the decree sought for in the present suit itself. I had directed and had observed that once amendments is made the question of propriety of valuation and sufficiency of court fees will be decided by the court with reference to the reliefs sought for in the plaint after the same is amended.

(3.) Review of my judgment is sought for on various grounds raised in the R.P. memorandum and I have head Sri. Abraham George Jacob, advocate on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Fazil, Counsel for the respondents extensively on the various grounds.