DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM Vs. CHERIYAN MARIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is whether the claim that a certain amount said to be payable by the respondent by way of penalty under S. 18 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under S. 23 as public revenue under S. 62 of the said Act. THE learned judge before whom this contention was raised by the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that it cannot be so recovered and allowed the original petition and quashed the revenue recovery proceedings.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for us to decide in this appeal the question discussed by the learned judge since we are convinced that the same result reached by the learned judge must follow because of the lack of an order which the judge should pass under S 18 (2) imposing the penalty. S. 18 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125 is in these terms: "the judge after following the procedure prescribed in S. 21, sub-sections (4) and (5), may record a finding as to the valuation of the estate. The Court may direct that the probate or letters of administration be duly stamped on payment to the Collector of the full court fee which ought to have been originally paid thereon in respect of such value and of the further penalty, if the probate or letters is or are produced within one year from the date of the grant, of not more than five times, or if it or they, is or are produced after one year from such date, of not more than ten times, such proper court fee without any deduction of court fee originally paid. "

(3.) IN this view, ft is unnecessary to consider the implications of the decision in C. A. Abraham v. INcome-tax Officer, Kottayam and another reported in AIR. 1961 SC. 609 relied on by counsel on behalf of the appellant.