KESAVAN Vs. MADHAVA KAIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd plaintiff has filed this C.M. Appeal against an order directing him to pay court fees on the mortgage amount.

(2.) The suit is for redemption of a mortgage. The mortgage amount is Rs. 1647. Under a subsequent Udampady between the parties, the mortgagees agreed to appropriate the income from the property towards interest at 6 per cent on the mortgage amount and the balance towards the principal. After this Udampady the plaintiff applied under S. 15 of the Debt Relief Act for settling the amount and for recovery of property. The Court fixed the debt at Rs. 525-25 Chs.-0 C., but refused the plaintiff's prayer for recovery of property. So the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of property and paid court fees on Rs. 525-25 Chs.-0 C. The lower court directed the plaintiff to pay court fees on the entire mortgage amount. Hence this C.M. Appeal.

(3.) The Plaintiff - appellant relies on the words "agreed to by the contract" in sub-s. 8(b) of S. 4 of the Court Fees Act. According to the plain language of Cl.8(b) court fees should be paid on the principal amount secured by the instrument of mortgage. The words "agreed to by the parties" came up for interpretation in a similar case reported in Bhagavathi Pillai v. Lakshmanan Pillai 57 TLR 1362. It was held that these words qualify the woods "principal money". In the present case the principal amount agreed to by the parties as evidenced by the instrument of mortgage is Rs. 1647. The plaintiff's plea that the debt has been scaled down subsequently cannot be brought within the meaning of the words "agreed to by the parties". Except where mortgage had been split up, court fees have to be paid on the amount expressly secured by the document irrespective of the fact that the amount has been reduced subsequently by adjustment of the parties. This position is supported by the ruling in Narayanan v. Sankara Aiyan 22 T.L.R. 268 where a Division Bench held.