LAWS(MAD)-1951-8-39

PAPPUKKANNU ANNI Vs. S.THOPPAYYA MUDALIAR

Decided On August 03, 1951
Pappukkannu Anni Appellant
V/S
S.Thoppayya Mudaliar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsiff of Tiruturaipundi calling upon the plaintiff in O.S. No. 407 of 1949 to pay additional Court -fee. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendants are owners of neighbouring lands, that the defendants whose lands are on a higher level are attempting to pass oh the. surplus water of their lands to the lands belonging to the plaintiff by cutting the bund and that they have no right to do so. The prayers in the plaint are (1) for a declaration that the defendants 1 and 2 have no right to drain their water from their fields into the fields of the plaintiff and (2) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting open the bund and draining their surplus water into the fields of the plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the former relief under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) at Rs. 10 and the latter relief under Section 7 Clause (iv) (d) at Rs. 10 and paid Court -fee on Rs. 20.

(2.) THE defendants raised an objection to the correctness of the Court -fee paid by the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 189 of 1950 for revising his valuation with reference to the first prayer. Plaintiff offered to pay fixed Court -fee of Rs. 15 on that prayer, treating it as one coming under Article 17 (B) of the 2nd Schedule. On this application the learned District Munsiff passed the following order: 'The relief relates to an immovable property and the Court -fee has to be paid as per the notification, namely, half the value as under Section 7, Clause (v).' It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IT will be convenient before examining these authorities to refer to the law on the subject before it was amended by the Madras Act V of 1922. Section 7, Clause (iv) of the Court -fees Act enacts that in the six classes of suits mentioned in that Sub -section the plaintiff shall state the amounts at which he values the reliefs sought and the Court -fee shall be payable according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint. Three of the classes of the suits mentioned in that Subsection may be noticed. Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) refers to suits to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed. Section 7, Clause iv (e) deals with suits to obtain an injunction and Section 7, Clause iv (e) applies to suits for a right to some benefit to arise out of land (not herein otherwise provided for). In these classes of suits the plaintiff is free to put his own valuation and it is well settled that that valuation is not open to revision by Court, vide: 'Ramiah v. Rama -swami' 24 M.L.J. 233 following the decision in 'Guruvajamma v. Venkatakrishna Chetti' 24 Mad 34 and 'Chinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther' 27 Mad 430 and reaffirmed by the Full Bench in 'Arunachalam Chetti v. Rangaswami pillai' 38 Mad 922. Whether we regard the present suit as one for a declaration and consequential relief falling under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) or a suit for an injunction falling under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d) there can be no doubt that under the Court -fees Act of 1870 the plaintiff's valuation would be final and not liable to be questioned. Then we come to the Madras Amendment Act V of 1922. The only change introduced which is relevant for the purpose of this case is the addition of the proviso in Section 7, Clause (iv). The proviso is in these terms: 'In suits coming under Sub -clause (c) in cases where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property such valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property 'calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of this section.' The precise meaning of the words 'with reference to immovable property' has been considered in .several decisions. In 'Venkatakrishna Pattar', In re 52 M.L.J. 121 the plaintiff sued for a declaration that he had a right of way and drainage over the defendant's lands and for injunction. The District Munsiff held that the suit was for a declaration and consequential relief and came under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) and applying the amendment directed payment of the half the Court -fee payable in a suit for possession under Section 7, Clause v. The plaintiff was content to leave it at that but the defendant took the matter in revision and contended that the suit must be regarded as one for possession and full Court -fee was payable under Section 7, Clause V and not merely half thereof. Jackson, J., rejected this contention. This decision is strongly relied. on by V. V. Raghavan on behalf of the respondent. But it is clear that Jackson, J., did not decide that such suits fell within Section 7, Clause (IV) (c). He only decided that it did not fall under Section 7, Clause V. It may be noted that in 'Venkatakrishna Pattar In re' 52 M.L.J. 121 as in the present case the plaintiff sought to establish a right of easement and prayed for consequential relief by way of injunction but as the plaintiff himself had submitted to the order of the lower Court this Court had no occasion to decide under which clause it fell. But the words 'Where relief was sought with reference to any immovable property' were construed as meaning 'involving possession of lands, houses or garden' and as not including easements. This case, there -fore, is really some authority for the position that easement suits do not fall under Section 7(iv)(c). In 'Gurunatha v. Secretary for State', 59 Mad 962, the plaintiff claimed that he had a right to take water from the river Cauvery without liability to pay any irrigation cess and the suit was for declaration of that right and for refund of cess recovered by the Government. The District Munsiff had held that the suit fell under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) and that the plaintiff should accordingly value the suit as for possession under Section 7, Clause (v) and pay Court -fee on the basis of half the value of the plaint mentioned properties. In setting aside this order Varadachariar, J., observed that the consequential relief being refund of cess paid it was not one with reference to immovable property and that therefore. Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) did not apply. The learned Judge added that in substance the suit was one for easement and that it fell under Section 7, Clause (iv) (e). This again is an authority against the position that easement suits fall under Section 7(iv)(c). In 'Venkataranga Rao v. Sita Ramaehandra Rao' I.L.R. (1941) Mad 157 the plaintiff claimed that he had a right to the surplus water overflowing the defendant's tanks and prayed for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the customary flow of water and he fixed his own valuation and filed the suit in the Court of the District Munsiff. The defendant contended that the suit fell under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) and that on a proper valuation on the basis of Section 7, Clause (v) the suit would be beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff. Wadsworth, J., held that the only prayer in the plaint was for an injunction, that it was not obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to pray for a declaration and that the suit did not fall within Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) but that it came under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d). It may also be noted that at page 163, the learned Judge referred to the suit as one for easement. This might sound as an authority for the position that when injunction is prayed for in suits for easement that relief is within Section 7, Clause (iv) (d) but it may be noticed that prior to the notification which came into force on 1 -11 -43 it made no difference whether the relief claimed fell under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d) or under Section 7, Clause (iv) (e) either of them being untouched by the Madras Amendment of 1922.