V. RAMASWAMI GUPTA Vs. PASUPARTHI KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition raises a question of court -fee. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the petitioner. The allegations in the plaint material for consideration of the question at issue are as follows:

(2.) THE defendant executed a promissory note bearing date 11th December, 1941, for a sum of Rs. 3,815 in favour of one Padmavathamma. The said promissory note was transferred in favour of the plaintiff on 12th December, 1941. The plaintiff was demanding payment of the amount of principal and interest due under the promissory note but the defendant was postponing payment. Early in December, 1943, the defendant entered into an oral agreement of sale with the plaintiff under which he agreed to sell the house for a sum of Rs. 3,700 which sum had to be adjusted towards part of the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant however did not execute a proper sale deed, though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Finally the defendant denied the contract of sale with the plaintiff and set up an agreement of sale in favour of another. The plaintiff was therefore compelled to the legal proceedings to enforce his rights. He therefore prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) IT is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned Judge erred in holding that the suit comprised two distinct subjects within the meaning of that section. In Parameswara Pattar, In re : AIR1930Mad833 which is a decision of a Full Bench of this Court, the learned Judges did not attempt a definition of the word " subject " in Section 17 of the Court -Fees Act. The learned Judges merely took notice of two possible views as to the meaning of that word, viz.,one that the word " subject " relates back to Section 7 where the various subjects of suits are put under different heads; and the other that the word " subject " means a cause of action.