NULI VENKATA RAMAPA MURTHY Vs. P SRIRAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this revision petition is as to the Court-fee payable on the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The petitioner filed a suit alleging that he had obtained a decree against the first defendant, that there were several others who had obtained decrees similarly against him, that with a view to screen his properties and defeat and delay his creditors the first defendant got a collusive suit filed by the second defendant against him claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month with a charge over the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint and an ex parte decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month payable every year was passed. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 629 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Tanuku, does not bind the plaintiff or other creditors. He valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100 and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 418.50 under section 24 (d)of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that, in view of the decision in Muthayya v. Swarajyam, (196o) 1 An. W.R. 350. in which it was held that the valuation of the relief should be on the basis of the loss sustained by the plaintiff, the Court-fee should be paid on the aggregate of the debts in favour of the plaintiff and other creditors which amounted to Rs. 18,750.

(3.) Mr. Mangachari, while not disputing the proposition laid down in Muthayya v. Swarajyam, and adopted by the Court below contends that in this case the loss sustained by the plaintiff cannot be taken to be the total value of the debts, as even if the plaintiff succeeds completely in the suit, all that he would be entitled to is a declaration that the suit for maintenance is not binding on himself and the creditors and not the recovery of the debts due to them. In the decision referred to above the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the settlement executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is not binding and valid on the creditors. The face value of the settlement-deed was Rs. 30,000 whereas the total debts as claimed by the plaintiffs aggregate to Rs. 7,467-8-0. Narasimham, J., held that it was not necessary to value the relief at Rs. 30,000 at which the settlement-deed was valued but at the aggregate of the debts, as that was the loss which the plaintiffs suffered by reason of the settlement-deed. It will be noted, that in that case the aggregate of the debt was less than the value of the settlement-deed, whereas in this case it cannot be said that the aggregate of the debt is less than the value that may be put upon the maintenance decree. The learned Government Pleader while conceding that the loss sustained by the plaintiff should be the criterion in valuing the relief and that the Court below was wrong in taking the aggregate of the debts into consideration in this case the proper course would have been to value the maintenance decree regarding which a declaration was being sought.