PONNURU SAMBIAH Vs. ANNAPAREDDI VENKATAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four allied cases where the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla has directed a court-fee to be paid 'ad valorem', on a valuation of Rs. 15,000 in the three suits covered by the civil revision petitions Nos. 414 to 416, and of Rs. 9,000 ill the suit covered by C. R. P. No. 456 of 1950, for recovery of possession of the lands in which the 'archakas' claimed occupancy rights and from which they claimed to have been 'illegally ejected' by the orders of the District Court, Guntur, in O. Ps. filed under Section 78, Hindu Religious Endowments Act by the trustees of the temples acting under instructions from the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. In some suits there are other reliefs also claimed like accounting, mesne profits, etc., for which separate court-fee-has been paid and about which there is no dispute before me. The only dispute is regarding the mode of valuation for 'recovery of possession' of these alleged occupancy lands after the 'areha-kas' had parted with possession, under the orders of the District Court in the C. Ps. by delivering possession to the trustees.

(2.) The lesrned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the first three suits the plaintiffs could value the relief regarding the recovery of possession under Section 7(11)(e), Court-fees Act as in a case of 'illegal ejection' of an occupancy tenant by a landlord by force, and pay only an 'ad valorem' court-fee of Rs. 112-8-0, on the amount of assumed rent of Rs. 1,000 payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, and that the plaintiffs in the fourth suit could pay court-fee for this relief on Rs. 600. All these petitioners were claiming to pa.y court-fee for the relief of recovery of possession of these alleged occupancy lands, with whose possession they had parted by due process of law, under the orders of the District Court in O. Ps., on the wholly absurd and untenable ground that they were 'illegally ejected' by the landlord. Even if the District Court's orders in the O. Ps. were wrong in law, there was no 'illegal ejection' but 'only legal ejection' by process of law. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs in all the four suits were bound to pay 'ad valorem' court-fee, under Section 7, Clause (V)(c), on an amount of Rs. 15,000 in the first three suits, and on an amount of Rs. 9,000 in the fourth suit, be-ing 15 times the "net profits" arising from the land during the year next before the date of presenting of the plaints. He held that as 'strangers' (subsequent lessees from the trustees) were added in the first three suits, and as the title to the 'kudiwaram' rights in the lands was sought to be got declared, Section 7(V)(c), Court-fees Act alone would apply. He relied for this position on a ruling by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Leach C. J. and Lakshmana Rao J. in --'Kuppusami Pillai v. Taj Praksha Thakkal Estates', AIR 1946 Mad 322 (A), on a reference by Rajamannar J.

(3.) I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is clear to me that in a case like this where a plaintiff is claiming occupancy rights in lands with whose possession he has parted legally and peacefully, and under orders of Court in judicial proceedings, and where a declaration of the title of the 'kudiwaram' was sought, and strangers were added, the section applicable for paying the court-fee for recovery of possession is Section 7, Clause (V)(c), as held by the lower Court relying on the Bench ruling quoted above. Only, in calculating 15 times the 'net profits', the lower Court, in my opinion, erred in adopting the Rs. 1,000 and 6,00 shown as 'annual' profits by the petitioners as the 'net profits'. The cultivation expenses for raising the crops should be deducted, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the value of the harvested crops (or 'annual profit', which was Rs. 1000 and 600), and the rent or 'melwaram' payable to the landholder should also be deducted 'afterwards' from the above figure in order to get the 'net profits'. Indeed "annual profit", in the usual sense of the word, means the 'gross income' or the price of the produce got from the lands. It is obvious that unless the cultivation expenses are deducted, it will not be correct to call that 'net profits' at all. Usually we understand by 'net profits', from a land, what a man gets over and above his cultivation expenses. From the amount thus arrived at after deducting the cultivation expenses, a further amount must be deducted, in these cases, towards the rent or 'melwaram' admittedly payable to the landholder, under the ruling in --'AIR 1946 Mad 322 (A)', as these are only suits for establishing title to 'kudiwaram' alone.