M R KALYANA KRISHNA AYYAR Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a court-fee slip of the inspect-big Court-fee Examiner, the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat held that in the suits out of which these civil revision petitions arise, the plaintiff should pay court-fee under Section 7, Clause (iv) (a) of the Court-fees Act, on the Basis of the cancellation of the decrees referred to in the plaints in those suits. The plaintiff contends that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the payment of court-fee on the above basis, is without jurisdiction and seeks to revise the orders of the lower Court.

(2.) Both the suits are for recovery of possession of immovable properties on the strength of title with rents or mesne profits. The plaintiff is the executive officer of the Mangalam Anchumarthi temple in Palghat taluk, appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and seeks to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the plaints on the strength of the title of the temple. In the plaints it is stated that the previous trustees have, without the sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, created mortgages over suit properties which culminated in decrees being passed for certain amounts charging the properties and as a result of such decrees, those properties were sold in Court auction and purchased by the defendants, some of whom have alienated the same to third parties. It is stated in the plaints that these mortgages and sales are not binding on the trust and therefore the executive officer, on behalf of the temple, is entitled to recover possession of the properties with past mesne profits and damages as claimed in the plaints.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff being the present executive officer is not entitled to ignore these mortgages and sales but should pay court-fee as if for cancelling all these decrees and on that basis the plaintiff was asked to pay additional court-fee valuing the suits under Section 7, Clause (iv)(a) of the Court-fees Act. The previous hereditary trustees of the suit temple are arrayed among the defendants and the purchasers as well as their alienees are also made defendants. The learned Judge relied upon a decision of this Court in 'Ramasubba Aiyar v. Ayyalu Naidu', ILR (1941) Mad 708: 1941-1-M L J 414, where certain persons, representing the general body of worshippers in a temple, sued for a declaration that a decree obtained against the temple trustees was collusive and not binding on the temple and therefore wanted a declaration to that effect. In such a case, it was found that they are liable to pay court-fee under Section 7, Clause (iv) (a) of the Court-fees Act. That decision proceeded on the basis that since the plaintiffs wanted to represent the temple itself and were not suing as individuals, they could do so only if the decree against the temple is cancelled. Mockett J. considered various cases of this Court including one by Venkataramana Rao J. in Vallabhacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu', 45 Mad L W 380 and came to the conclusion that the suit ought to be valued in that way. The learned Subordinate Judge distinguished the two cases cited on behalf of the plaintiff, viz., 'rajah of Kalahasti v. Muni Venkatadri Rao Garu', 53 Mad L J 533 and 'Lakshmudu v. Ramudu', ILR (1940) Mad 123, on the ground that those cases related to a total prohibition regarding alienation and as such, any such alienation would not be binding on the properties or on the estate.