RAI NAND KISHORE PRASAD Vs. RUKMINI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay Court-fee on the market value of the property. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Narayan Prasad with a prayer for the consequential relief of possession of the properties mentioned in Schedules A, B & C attached to the plaint. The plaintiff had valued his suit under section 4(4)(c) of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act (VI of 1324-F.) which permitted him to give his own valuation. It may here be stated that the suit was filed on 26th November, 1957 and it was governed by the Hyderabad Court fees Act. The learned Judge, on an objection being raised by the defendants-respondents, discussed this question at length and taking into consideration a decision of the Madras High Court in Amina Bibi v. Kaair Batcha Rowthar, 1937 1 M.L.J. 739 : I.L.R. 1937 Mad. 672 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad 529 held that theplaintiff has to pay Court- fee on the valuation of the property. Section 4 (4)(c) and (f) of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act read as follows :-

(2.) This indicates that the plaintiff has been given the discretion to value his own suit in cases where a consequential relief also is prayed for. There can be little doubt that a suit which was filed in 1957 shall be governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act. The learned Judge fell into an error when he proceeded to discuss the provisions of the Madras Court-fees Act and ultimately decided the case on the strength of a decision of the Madras High Court, which has been referred to earlier. It may be observed that the learned Judge failed to note that the Hyderabad Court-fees Act does not contain a provision similar to the proviso to 7 (iv) (c) of the Madras Court-fees Act. The decision relied upon by the learned Judge relates to a case under the Madras Court-fees Act, and it can have no application to the present case which is governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act. In my view, the plaintiff should not be asked to pay a Court-fee higher than what he had already paid.

(3.) The revision petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. The suit it appears is pending since 1957 and, therefore, the learned Judge is directed to take steps to expeditiously dispose of the same in accordance with law. Revision allowed.