SATHYAVRETHAN Vs. 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 will also depend the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction thus arises for consideration in this revision.

(2.) THE Plaintiff filed a suit in the Munisiff's Court, Varkala praying for a decree:

(3.) THE trial court noticed that the amount deposited in the bank exceeded one lakh and fifty thousand and therefore it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. In appeal, the Additional Sub Court, Attingal held that the court fee paid for prayer (a) was sufficient; but regarding the mandatory injunction claimed to return the amount to the Plaintiff, it was held that the Plaintiff was bound to incorporate a prayer for declaration, as there is dispute regarding his right to the amount, and that court fee has to be paid on the amount claimed under Section 22 of the Act. As the Claim was for over 11 1/2 lakhs of rupees, the lower court upheld the order of the trial court returning the plaint. These orders are challenged in revision.