KUSAPATI RAMAIAH Vs. VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who is the petitioner before me instituted a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,516-4-0 lying in deposit in the Court. In his plaint, he valued the relief sought at a sum of Rs. 5,100 and paid ad, valorem Court-fee thereon. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the whole amount with respect to which the declaration was claimed. The correctness of that order is impeached by the petitioner.

(2.) Now section 24 of the Andhra Court-Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is applicable to the case deals with four kinds of suits for declaration (with or without consequential relief). Clause (a) deals with a suit where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates ; clause (b) applied to a suit where the prayer is for a declaration and a consequential injunction and relates to immoveable property; clause (c) deals with a suit where the prayer concerns plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an alleged infringement of such right ; and the remaining clause deals with a suit not covered by any of the other clauses. It is common ground that the present case falls under the last clause, which is in these terms :- "(d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher."

(3.) Apart from the curious fact that this language would seem to contemplate cases where plaintiffs value the relief they claim at a higher amount than that at which the Court values it, the Act itself gives no guidance as to the manner in which the relief is to be valued either by the party or by the Court ; nor have any rules been framed to that end by the State Government under section 77 of the Act. In the circumstances, therefore, upon the language as it stands the Court must be held to have been vested with a discretion either to accept the valuation made by the plaintiff or to fix a valuation of its own. The discretion so vested, of course, must be exercised judicially and in the absence of any guidance afforded by the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, the Court would do well in exercising it take into consideration the previous state of the law applicable to such a case, as also the context in which this clause stands. Under the law as it stood before the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, was passed, the Court- fee payable upon the plaint in the present case would have been Rs. 100. Again, in a suit where the prayer is not merely for a declaration but also for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, the Court-fee is to be computed under clause (a) of the section on the market value of the property. Where no possession is prayed for but simple declaration, the Court-fee cannot certainly be as much as is payable under that clause. Even under the old law, where a declaration as well as possession was sought ad valorem Court-fee on the value of the property to which the declaration related was payable, while when the prayer was simply for a declaration, a sum of Rs. 100 only was chargeable.