VATRAPU RAMI REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in this reference is whether the appellants ought to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the costs awarded against them as also on the costs disallowed to them in a partition suit. The contention of Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Advocate for the appellants, is that the appropriate Article applicable to the case is Article 17-B of the old Court-fees Act, which is in the following terms :- "17-8. Plaint or memorandum of appeal in every suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. When the plaint is presented to or One hundred rupees." the memorandum of appeal is against the decree of. .......... (c) District Court or a Sub-Court.

(2.) The appellants have paid a Court-fee of Rs. 100 as in a partition action under Article 17-B of the Court-fees Act. The office raised the objection that though Court-fee paid in respect of the relief as to partition is quite in order, the memorandum of appeal wa« defective inasmuch as no Court-fee was paid in regard to the claim as to costs. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Makki, In re., I.L.R. 19 Mad. 350.

(3.) Having given my best consideration, I am inclined to uphold the contention of Sri T. Veerabahadrayya. The point is directly governed by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jyoti Prasad Singha Deo v. Jogcndra Ram Ray, (1928)I.L.R. 56 Cal. 188.