ASMAL KHAN Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUF GHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit filed by one Mohammed Abdul Ghani and some Muslims of the locality for possession of Trust Property the question for consideration was whe ther the court fee was payable under Sec. 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 or the provisions of Sec. 24 (a) were applicable.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge,.Chittoor by his order dated 6th November, 1963 in O. S. No, 35 of 1960 held that as the Wakfs Board has also been made a party the court-fee paid is according to law under Section 27 of the Act. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. On a perusal of the plaint, a copy of which has been made available, it appears that a suit has been filed by the 1st plaintiff as Mutawalli of Bakshi Mian Dargah, situated at Seshapuram Street, Chittoor, in a representative capacity along with plaintiffs 2 to 4 as persons interested in the up keep of the Dargah.THE contention is that the schedule properties belonged to Bakshi Mian Dargah,Chittoor and the defendants who were in possession and management of the properties were selling the same without any manner of right. THE prayer was to the effect that a declaration be given in respect" of the schedule properties as belonging to the Dargah and permanent injunction be granted restraining the defendants from interfering with in any manner or making alterations or demolition of the existing buildings. THE question, therefore, was whether the court - fee was payable under Section 27 or Sec. 24 (b) of the Court-Fees Act. As stated above, the lower court held that as it was a suit relating to trust property the provisions of Sec. 27 were attracted. But, Sec. 27 deals with any suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaration, with or, without consequential relief, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who has ceased to be a trustee in which case fee shall have to be computed on l/5th of the market value of the property subject to a maximum fee of Rs. 200/- or whire the property has no market value of Rs. 1,000/-, If the suit was between the trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustees, provisions of Sec. 27 of the Act would have been attracted. But in this case since the 1st defendant is only in possession of the property and the 1st plaintiff, who is a Mutawalli, is not seeking relief as trustee it cannot be said to be a suit between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustees. Mutawallies of Dargahs or mosques cannot be held to be trustees and as such section 27 of the Act has no application. THE proper court-fee which should be paid is leviable under section 24 (b) of the Act. THE revision petition is, therefore, allowed directing the respondents to pay the court-fee within two months of the receipt of the order in the lower Court. No costs.