VENKATARATNAM Vs. SRAVANTBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st defendant is the appellant. In a suit for possession he claimed that he is eintitled to be compensated for the improvements made by him over the property. That claim was negatived. The present appeal is preferred contending that a condition should be imposed in the trial court's decree that it shall be executable only on payment of a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the appellant (first defendant) towards the said improvements. The Appellant has valued the appeal under Section 47, which is a residuary section, and whereunder court fee is payable at a fixed rate but slab-wise. The office has taken an objection that the amount claimed herein is in the nature of a set-off or counter-claim and, therefore the court-fee on the ad valorem basis should be paid.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in Subrhmania vs. Shanmugham and Appaeswari vs. P. S. Ramanatheswara to contend that such a plea in the written statement does not amount to a counter claim or set-off and, therefore, no court-fee is payable on that basis. It may be so; but the position here is entirely different Here is an appeal wherein the appellant is claiming that certain amount should be held to be due to him and that, the decree in favour of the plaintiff should be reduced by that amount.

(3.) The appellant is asking for compensation for the improvements made by him. I see no reason why such a type of claim should not fall under section 20, which reads as follows :