B DEVENDRAKUMAR Vs. R RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, aggrieved against the order of the court below, directing him to pay the additional court-fee for the future mesne profits determined at the rate of Rs. 15,000 p.m. from December 1993, till date of decree, has filed the above revision.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.952 of 1993 on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Dindigul praying for a decree for possession of the land in question, for damages for use and occupation for the months of October and November, 1993 and for future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month from the date of the plaint till date of delivery of possession of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. In the plaint, the plaintiff has paid the court-fee towards recovery of future damages under Sec.22 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. THE plaintiff undertook to pay necessary court fee for future damages from the date of the suit till delivery of possession of the suit property at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month. THE trial court in the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1996 decreed the suit and quantified the future damages at Rs. 15,000 per month. Clause (3) of the said decree reads as follows:

(3.) WHEN the defendant appeals against the final de-cree, he knows the exact value of this relief. He should pay the court fee on the amount of decree passed against him except; in cases where he appealed only against a portions of the decree Sec.52 of the said Act compels the appellant to pay the same court-fee that would be payable in the first instance on the subject matter of appeal. Irrespective of the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the suit, the appellant has to pay the court -fee that would be payable, in the suit. The said provision insists to pay the court-fee on the subject-matter of the appeal. Admittedly the subject-matter of the appeal is also the quantum of future damages fixed by the trial court, so, the defendant cannot take advantage of the fact that the plaintiff has not paid the court-fee and contend that he need not pay the court-fee on that. While dealing with similar issue, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kudappasubbaramma, In re., A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 6 has held as follows: