PUNYENDRA NARAYAN Vs. BHAIRABENDRA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises the question of court-fees payable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming the Bijniraj Estate which was under the management of the Court of Wards together with certain movable properties. The suit as originally instituted was for declaration only and when it was held by the Court that a purely declaratory suit was barred "toy the proviso to Section 4, Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment by adding a prayer for possession and giving up his claim to certain movable properties and also one item of immovable property which has been described as Monoharpur Chak which has been resumed by the Government. The question of court-fees arose when the plaintiff sought to add the prayer for possession.

(2.) It is common ground that the court-fee payable should be determined by Article 7, Para. 5 of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff valued his claim at Rs. 2,17,271/- odd on the footing that according to the administration report of the Court of Wards which was managing the estate, the net profits which had arisen, from the properties during the year next before the date of presentation of the plaint amounted to Rs. 20,723-10-11 pies and three times this amount represented the market value of the property. The value of the immovable properties was thus stated to be Rs. 60,171/- odd to which the plaintiff added certain additional items about which there is no dispute between the parties. According to the plaintiff, the market value is three times the net profits, because under the provisions of the Assam Abolition of Zemindary Act the owners of estate are to receive three times the net profits as compensation.

(3.) The defendants challenged the valuation made by the plaintiff on the ground that the net profits as shown in the administration report of the Court of Wards are wrong, that on a proper estimate the net profits would be much higher and that the provisions of the Assam Abolition of Zemindary Act did not afford a proper criterion for determining the market value of the properties in dispute.