J VENKATA SASTRY Vs. P RUKMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is as to the proper court-fee payable on a plaint in an administration suit under the Hyderabad Court-Fees Act VI of 1324 fasli.

(2.) The estate to be administered is alleged to belong to one Chengal Rao, who died intestate on 24th April, 1953 leaving behind him defendants 1 to 4 as his heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiff claims to be the creditor of late Chengal Rao. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff lent Rs. 15,000 I.G. to the deceased and obtained a promissory note. The prayer asked for in the plaint is that, accounts be taken of the movable and immovable properties of late Chengal Rao and the same be duly administered under the decree of this Court.

(3.) Under Article 13 of Schedule II of the Hyderabad Court-Fees Act, a fixed court-fee of O.S. Rs. 100 was paid. So far as the court-fee for the relief prayed for and referred to above is concerned there is no dispute at all. It is common ground that proper court-fee is paid for that relief. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it was alleged that the suit was filed for the benefit of the plaintiff and for the benefit of other creditors of late Chengal Rao. It was further alleged that by a nominal, colourable and sham transaction evidenced by a document dated 11ith September, 1956 purporting to be a sale deed the defendants 1 to 4 unlawfully and fraudulently alienated the property mentioned in the sale deed to the 5th defendant. It was also alleged that the said alienation was void and a nullity as it amounts to a fraudulent transfer intended to defraud and defeat the rights of the plaintiff and other creditors and was also without any lawful consideration. It was further claimed in the same paragraph that the said property should therefore be administered for the benefit of all the creditors equitably according to law.