MEENAKSHISUNDARAM PILLAI Vs. PONNU ALIAS SUBBIAH CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by one Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 62 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, to revise and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to pay court-fee on Rs. 31,000, instead of a fixed court-fee of Rs. 100 paid by him, under Article 17-B of Schedule ii of the Court-fees Act, on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was incapable of valuation.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, and also the learned Government Pleader as a matter of court-fee is involved. The facts were briefly these. The suit properties originally belonged to the petitioner. They were sold to one Alagamian Chetti, whose legal representatives are defendants 1 to 6 for a sum of Rs. 31,000, by a sale deed dated 5-4-1935. On the same day, a contemporaneous agreement was alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and Alagannan Chetti, whose terms provided for accounting of ultimate sale proceeds and were as follows: Alagannan was to convey the properties to any per-son nominated by the plaintiff and to take rs. 31000 out of the sale proceeds realised on such sale for himself and to pay the balance over to the plaintiff; and in ease the sale to such nominees was for a sum less than Rs. 31000 the plaintiff was to make good to Alagannan the deficit. A period of four years was fixed for the plaintiff to nominate such would-be purchasers. If the plaintiff was unable to procure such purchasers within the four years period, still the two-way agreement was not to lapse, but Alagannan himself was to sell the properties to persons of his choice and keep Rs. 31,000 out of the sale proceeds for himself and pay over the balance to the plaintiff; and if a sum less than Rs. 31,000 was realised by such sale, he was entitled to recoup the deficit from the plaintiff. Defendants 7 to 9 and 10 were impleaded as sub-sequent purchasers of some of the suit properties for sums aggregating to Rs. 18,000, from Alagannan. The plaintiff alleged that the properties sold to these defendants were really worth Rs. 31000 and that the unsold properties still with Alagannan and his legal representatives were worth Rs. 35000. So the plaintiff valued the properties-notionally at Rs. 68000, including in such valuation, a sum of Rs. 13,000 (3l000-18,000) in excess of the price for which some of the properties were actually sold to defendants 7 to 9 and 10. But when it came to a question of valuing the suit, the plaintiff valued his relief for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 8,000 and contended for the purposes of court fee that the relief was incapable of valuation arid paid a fixed sum of Rs. 100.

(3.) ON objection being taken in a check slip, the plaintiff's counsel admitted before the lower court, without conceding that the relief was capable of valuation, the plaintiff's liability to pay court fee on Rs. 8000 the approximate and estimated sum due to him on the sales under the agreement but on nothing more. The lower court considered that, in effect, what the plaintiff wanted was a reconveyance of the properties for himself or his nominees, for the same sum of Rs. 31,000 as was paid by Alagannan or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff at least wanted the properties to be rid of the burden of the original sale amount of Rs. 31000. So it directed the plaintiff to pay court fee on Rs. 31,000 as in a suit for reconveyance or for redemption. It was of opinion that on his expressing hopes of getting a maximum value of Rs. 66000 he might be even liable to pay court fee on Rs. 35000 (Rs. 66000-Rs. 31000 ). But he was given the benefit of the lesser of the court fees and therefore asked to pay court fee on Rs. 31000 as for reconveyance or redemption. The plaintiff is dissatisfied and has filed this petition.