KUPPURAMA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, dated 23-3-1976 in O. S. No. 1207 of 1974. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed the suit for declaration to set aside the sale held by the revenue authorities on 9th July 1974, under the Revenue Recovery Act, in realisation of certain loans. contending that the sale was null and void. He paid court-fee under S. 25(d) of the Court Fees Act. The Court Fee Examiner gave a check-slip pointing out that the proper provision under which the court-fee should have been paid was S. 40(1) of the Court Fees Act. The matter came before the learned District Munsif for determining the question whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was correct and whether he had to pray for cancellation of the sale held on 9th Oct. 1973, in which event a higher fee became payable. After discussing the rival contentions he held that the plaintiff had to value the suit under S. 40(1) of the Court Fees Act and seek also a prayer for cancellation of the revenue sale. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present civil revision petition questioning the legality of this decision.

(2.) Sec. 25 provides as follows-

(3.) It may be seen that the last clause viz., Cl. (d) would arise for consideration only if the prayer in the suit does not fall within the scope of Clauses (a) to (c). In the present case, there is no dispute about the prayer not falling within Cls. (a) to (c). In other words, if Section 25 were looked into, it would be necessary to refer only to cl. (d) for the purpose of ascertaining the proper court-fee payable in the present case.