RAMKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. JANAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee. The petitioner filed (sic) suit in the Court of the District Munsif of (sic)alangiman for recovery of properties described (sic) A, B and C schedules annexed to the plaint (sic) to be the reversioner to the estate of (sic) Chinnayya Nayudu against the alienees of (sic) properties from the widow of said Chinnay (sic) Naidu. He valued the suit at Rs. 2797 and (sic) an ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 247-7-0.

(2.) Pending the suit, but before it came on for (sic) the plaintiffs filed compromise petitions settling their claim with defendants 5, 7, 9 and (sic) in respect of items 1 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, that is, after (sic) issues were framed, the court-fee examiner (sic)sued a check-slip that the suit properties were (sic) correctly valued, though none of the parties (sic) raised any objection as to the valuation or (sic) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. (sic) the District Munsif appointed a (sic) who reported that on a proper (sic) of the properties, the suit would be (sic) the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. (sic) this report of the Commissioner, the (sic) Munsif returned the plaint for presen(sic) to the proper Court. After taking back (sic) plaint, the plaintiff struck off the claims as (sic) items 1 and 3 and re-presented it in (sic) same Court. It may be mentioned here that (sic) those items were excluded, the plaint could be (sic) as it would be within the pecuniary (sic) jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The District Munsif returned the plaint again(sic) the reason that he thought that the plaintiff could not be allowed to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction by abandoning some of the reliefs, as they had already obtained interim decrees as per the compromise filed into court. On an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, the order of the trial court was set aside and the District Munsif was directed to receive the plaint as amended, if presented in his Court. The ground of decision of the lower Appellate Court was, that it was not open to a Court, to insist on the plaintiffs asking for a relief which they did not want or to call upon them to reinstate into the plaint, the properties and defendants that they had chosen to give up. Secondly the lower Appellate Court found that the trial court was wrong in assuming that interim decrees had been passed. It was also observed by the Appellate Judge that if the trial Court considered that it was a new plaint, it might call upon the plaintiffs to pay fresh court-fees.

(3.) When the plaintiffs sought to represent the plaint again with the court-fee originally paid, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay fresh court-fee on the ground that the claim alleged to have been settled was realised during the pendency of the suit and therefore the court-fee paid in O. S. No. 243 of 1949 could not be utilised for the plaint.