LONAKUTTY Vs. PORANCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision in this revision petition is whether the order of the lower court regarding the court fee payable by the plaintiff is correct or not. According to the plaint allegations the plaintiff had entrusted the plaint properties to the defendant for management when he was employed outside the Cochin State, and the defendant was wrongly refusing to surrender possession of the properties and rendering an account of his management after the plaintiff came back and asked for surrender and settlement of accounts. Before instituting the suit, the plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant, and in his reply to that notice the defendant had stated that he was in possession of the properties as a lessee. The prayer in the plaint was for recovery of possession of the properties on the strength of the plaintiffs title with past and future mesne profits. Under S.3(5)(a) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, in suits for possession of land, building or garden which are not based on a contract the plaintiff has to pay court fee according to the market value of the subject matter and such value, in cases of dispute, shall be taken to be ten times the annual gross profits of such land, building or garden where it is capable of yielding annual profits, minus the assessment paid, if any, to the Government. In the reply to the plaintiffs notice the defendant had stated that the rent payable by him was 400 paras of paddy per year. On the strength of this reply the plaintiff took up the position that the defendant had admitted the plaintiffs title to the properties and his right to recover 400 paras of paddy from the defendant and that the subject matter of the suit had therefore to be deemed to be only the balance right in respect of 200 paras of paddy per year, and valued the suit on that basis. The lower court held that the plaintiff had to pay court fee according to the market value of the properties which had to be taken to be ten times the annual gross profits, namely, 600 paras of paddy per year, and ordered him to pay court fee accordingly. The plaintiffs contention in the revision petition is that this order is wrong, and he relies upon the decisions in Maroof Sahib v. Ayyakunnu ( AIR 1935 Mad. 569 ) and 1951 D. L. R. (T-C) 117 in support of his contention. Neither of these decisions helps the plaintiff. In the Madras case the plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the kudivaram and for recovery of the land on the strength of that right. The court held that the subject matter of the dispute in that case being only the kudivaram it was only on the market value of the kudivaram right and not on the market value of the full rights in the properties that the plaintiff had to pay court fee. Similarly in the Travancore-Cochin case also the suit was to avoid an alienation with respect to a limited interest in the property, and the court held that the court fee had to be paid only on the valuation of that limited interest. In the present case, the suit is not for declaration of any limited right in the properties but for a declaration of the full rights in them. No doubt, the defendant has admitted the plaintiffs title to the properties and claimed only a limited interest in them, namely, a leasehold right. But the suit is not one for cancellation or avoidance of a leasehold right but for recovery of possession of the properties on the basis of the plaintiffs full title in them. The amount of court fee payable has to be determined on the allegations in the plaint as to the plaintiffs cause of action and the prayers therein and not with reference to the defendants contentions in answer to those allegations.

(2.) In the present case, the plaintiffs definite prayer was that he should be allowed to recover possession of the plaint properties on the strength of his title, and, according to him, he had full title in the properties. He has, therefore, to pay court fee on the market value of the properties which has to be taken to be ten times the annual gross profits minus the assessment. To accept the plaintiffs contention would lead to this fantastic result namely, that if in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession the defendant enters appearance and files a written statement admitting the plaintiffs title and his right to recover possession of the properties the plaintiff need not then pay any court fee at all as there will then be no dispute between him and the defendant in such a case. I hold that the order of the lower court in the present case calling upon the plaintiff to pay court fee according to S.3(5)(a) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act is correct. The civil revision petition is therefore, dismissed with costs.