K RAMA BHAT Vs. PARVATHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in these revision petitions relates to the Court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal from the final decree in a suit for partition. THE answer to the controversy depends on the true construction of Art. 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act,1870,as amended in Madras, and obtaining in the year 1953 when the suit for partition, the final decree from which was appealed against, was filed. Art. 17-B reads as follows:

(2.) IT is common ground that it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute in the original suit in which the final decree was passed and that a plaint in that suit was properly stamped with the fixed fee of Rs 100/ -.

(3.) THIS decision was followed by a Full Bench of the nagpur High Court (Sinha C. J. and Hidayatullah and Mudholkar JJ.) in Manohar shamrao and others v. Manorama Bai reported in AIR. 1952 Nagpur 350. In that case the second question referred for decision to the Full Bench was: "is court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal in a suit for partition to be determined by reference to the value of the subject-matter in appeal or by reference to the fact that the court-fee leviable on the plaint was governed by Art. 17 (vi) Schedule II? The Full Bench after a discussion of the authorities on the subject answered the question as follows: "the court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal in a suit for partition which falls under Art. 17 (vi ). Schedule II of the court-fees Act would be the same as that leviable on a plaint and is not to be assesse on the basis of the value of the subject-matter in appeal. "