SWAMINATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. VELLACHAMI SERVAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Swaminathan Chettiar, the Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 350 of 1953, on the file of the District Munsif, Sivaganga, to revise and set aside the order of the District Munsif, directing the Petitioner to pay court -fee under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act.

(2.) THE facts were briefly these: the Petitioner, Swaminathan Chettiar, claimed to be the iruwaram owner of the suit holdings in the possession of thirty -eight Defendants in the suit, each Defendant holding a different extent of land. The Defendants, according to the Plaintiff, had executed lease deeds in his favour agreeing to pay six marakkals of paddy for each chei and one bundle of straw for swamibogam, and also half -share of the produce. They were all later on said to have conspired together to appropriate the entire produce of the lands for themselves, and not to pay one grain of paddy or one bundle of straw to the Plaintiff, and to have, in pursuance of the conspiracy, resolved to harvest the entire crops and remove them without paying the rent stipulated for in the lease deeds. As there was the allegation of conspiracy between all the Defendants, the Plaintiff joined them all in one suit, instead of filing separate suits against each of them. He prayed for the appointment of a receiver for harvesting the crops, so that the rents stipulated for in the lease deeds might be safeguarded. He did not pray for the recovery of the rents themselves because they had not yet fallen due. He paid only a court -fee of Rs. 15 under Article 17 -B of Schedule II. The Court -fee examiner issued a check -slip to the effect that, on the allegations in the plaint, court -fee should have been paid under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. But, as he considered that there might be some statutory difficulties in the way of such valuation, he was of opinion that the Plaintiff might be allowed to pay a fixed court -fee of Rs. 15 as regards each Defendant, or in all Rs. 570, as against the Rs. 15 court -fee paid in the plaint. The learned District Munsif agreed with the Court -fee examiner that court -fee was payable under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, but did not agree with him that there were any statutory or other difficulties in the way of the payment of the court -fee under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c). He held that there was absolutely no doubt that the appointment of a receiver asked for in the plaint was only a consequential relief, the ownership of the lands in question and the right to recover the rents stipulated under the leases being the bases for asking for this relief. In other words, the learned District Munsif was of opinion that the Plaintiff should have asked for a declaration that the lands in the possession of the Defendants were iruwaram lands of which the Plaintiff was the owner, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover rent as per the lease deeds executed by the Defendants in his favour, and, as a consequential relief, for the appointment of a receiver to harvest the crops, as the Defendants bad conspired together to remove the crops in entirety, claiming the sole and exclusive right to them and the lands. The learned District Munsif passed orders accordingly Hence this revision petition.

(3.) MR . Desikan urged that this was a case where the Plaintiff could sue for the appointment of a receiver as the main and only relief, like a reversioner suing for the appointment of a receiver to an estate, where the widow or her alienee or both are indulging in gross acts of waste, which will soon make the estate go out of existence, leaving nothing for any reversioner to succeed to or inherit. I cannot agree that the analogy is correct. In the case mentioned by Mr. Desikan, the reversioner would have no present right at all in the estate, neither title nor possession; indeed, the reversioner might die before the widow, as he does in many a case. So, it will be unreasonable in the case of the reversioner not to allow him to sue for the appointment of a receiver as the sole and only relief in the circumstances stated. But, here, the Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the lands, and claims that the Defendants are lessees under him and that they have executed lease deeds in his favour agreeing to pay fixed rates of rent. His only allegation is that the Defendants have conspired together to claim the entire ownership in the lands and the crops in themselves and to cheat him of his lands and rents. It is obvious, therefore, that the Plaintiff ought, in the circumstances of this case, to pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit lands in question and that he has leased them out to the Defendants, as his tenants, stipulating for the rents mentioned in the lease deeds, and then to pray for the appointment of a receiver to harvest the crops, as a consequential relief, since the Defendants had conspired together to remove and appropriate the entire crops for themselves. So, I am of opinion that the lower Court was perfectly right in asking for court -fee to be paid under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act.