SATHYAN Vs. MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a suit is filed for an injunction restraining a Bank from paying the amount covered by a fixed deposit receipt, is the plaintiff liable to pay court fee on the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt, treating the suit as a declaratory suit or is it sufficient to pay court fee only on the relief of injunction which he has sought A question of court fee on which wilt also depend the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction thus arises for consideration in this revision.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala praying for a decree:

(3.) The plaintiff averred that his father Madhavan had a fixed deposit in his name in the Varkala branch of the Indian Overseas Bank as evidenced by a fixed deposit receipt dated 15-4-1976 and renewed in 1979. Madhavan is dead and the plaintiff, his son claimed the amount covered by the receipt, but the bank refuses to pay on the ground that according to the tenor of the receipts in their possession, the amount was payable to the second defendant. The suit was therefore filed for injunction incorporating the two prayers extracted above.