P RUKMAJI RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition gives rise to an important question relating to court-fees whether court-fees is payable on the memorandum of compromise in a suit for declaration of title and of recovery of possession of immovable property, where under the defendants is entitled for payment of certain sums of money from the plaintiff.

(2.) The material fats may briefly be s sated; In art performance of an agreement of sale dated 18/06/1959 executed by the second respondent in respect of Amar Talkies, Hyderabad ownered by him for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000.00 the petitioner and the third respondent the vendees were put in possession of the talkies. The vendor had received various sums of money towards sale consideration from the petitioner. In the year 1954 the third respondent had relinquished his interest in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore in sole and exclusive possession and enjoyment of Amar Talkies. Hyderabad till disputes arose between the parties in the year 1958 regarding the possession of the talkies. No registered sale deed was executed by the vendor. Disputes relating to possession of talkies arose between the vendor and vendees. The possession of the petitioner was declared by the Munsif- Magistrate, Hyderabad West, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in his order dated 29-6-1959. O.S.No.21/60 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of Amar talkies, making the vendees as defendants 1 and 2 was filed by the second respondent. The first defendant-petitioner contested the suit contending inter alia that he was the owner of the suit property on the basis of the agreement of sale pursuant to which he had paid the sale consideration and was put in possession of the property. The parties ultimately entered into a compromise and filed memorandum of compromise and filed memorandum of compromise on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed on 27/11/1961. Under the compromise, plaintiffs title to and possession of the suit property was declared but he has to pay Rs. 95,000.00 to the first defendant. Pursuant to the compromise decree, a sum of Rs. 13,252.00 was paid at the time of recording of the compromise and Rs. 5,000.00 within eight days from the date of the decree and a sum of Rs. 21,748 lying in the Criminal Court was permitted to be withdrawn by the first defendant. The balance of Rs. 55,000.00 is payable with interest at 12% per annum within a period of six months and the decree was agreed to be executable. At the time of the withdrawal of the amounts, the defendants was required by the Court to pay him under protest. Thereafter on 22/11/1961 the petitioner was demanded a further sum of Rs. 718-80 towards court-fees on the ground that the decree is an executable one and that the parties transferred into opposite camps and the first defendant had obtained a decree for money. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(3.) Sri M.V. Subbarao, for the petitioner contends that no court-fees is payable by his client on the document called memorandum or compromise. This claim of the petitioner is opposed by the Government pleader contending inter alia that the compromise decree is an executable one and the defendant who had obtained the decree for money must pay the court-fees on that sum.