THAMMANA PEDA VENKATASUBBA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises the question whether proper Court-fee has been paid on the Memorandum of Appeal. The facts necessary for the determination of this question are as follows :- The appellant is the first defendant in the trial Court, the second defendant being his minor son, represented by the mother as the guardian. The suit was filed by the respondent, the Municipal Council of Vijayawada, for recovery of Rs. 7,634.62 nP. towards the arrears of house/land tax in respect of three houses bearing door Nos. 6/77, 78 and 79, as per assessment Nos. 1708, 1709 and 1710, for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 together with interest. The plaintiff prayed that a preliminary decree be pased against the defendants with a first charge on the plaint schedule property and in default of payment, to direct sale of the same, and, in the event of the proceeds of the sale being insufficient, liability be reserved for the plaintiff to apply for a decree for the balance.

(2.) The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction under section 50 (r) of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act') was stated to be Rs. 7,634-62 nP. and a Court-fee of Rs. 613.50 nP. was paid under Section 20 of the said Act.

(3.) The trial Court decreed that the plaintiff do recover from the first defendant personally, and from the joint family properties of both the defendants, the sum of Rs. 7,634.62 nP. with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum, and also recover similarly Rs. 1,105. 44 nP. towards the costs of the suit. The decree also provided that the plaint-schedule property do stand a first charge for the decree amount, ftnd that the decree is without prejudice to the claims of the first defendant for refund, if any, of the tax in execution of his decree in O.S. No. 217 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vijayawada, and to such remedies as may be available between defendants i and 2 inter se for reimbursement or contribution, as the case may be. Aggrieved by this decree, the first defendant preferred this appeal, questioning the liability, in any event., to pay the tax after 26th November, 1957, as he ceased to be the owner of the property on that date by reason of a Court sale, and disputing his personal liability for the entire amount decreed. He has also questioned the direction that the joint family properties be sold, as there are none, and raised other objections as to the frame of the suit. The Memorandum of Appeal was valued under section 47 of the Act, and, as the decree is for more than Rs. 5,000 and less than Rs. 10,000, a Court-fee of Rs. 200 was paid thereunder.