CHAHATO KUER Vs. DEOSHAKHI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Title suit 84/20 of 1954 /56 was originally filed by four plaintiffs claiming to be the daughters of one Beyadar Singh. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the properties of Beyadar Singh. One of the plaintiffs died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. And, without mentioning any other detail of the intervening facts, it will suffice to say that the suit was continued by the three remaining plaintiffs. During the pendency of the first appeal in the High Court, plaintiff No. 2 died, and her son Baidya Nath Singh, opposite party No. 3, and her husband Ramparvesh Singh, opposite party No. 2, before me, were substituted in the appeal. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and the decree of the trial court were set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. After remand, defendants 5 to 10 who are petitioners before me filed an application in the court below praying to direct the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the valuation of the plaint before the suit could be heard on merits. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge rejected this prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. They came up in revision to the Court in Civil Revision 222 of 1963. It was heard and decided by me on the 4th of February, 1964. I held in that case that on the death of plaintiff No. 2 her legal representatives could continue the suit either on payment of the requisite court-fee or on permission being granted to them to continue the suit in forma pauperis. They could not, so to say, inherit the permission or the right of their predecessor in interest to continue the suit in forma pauperis. In the view I took, I set aside the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, remitted the case back to him and directed him to do any of the following three things-

(2.) After the remand by me of the case to the court below petition was filed on 11-4-64 on behalf of the plaintiffs including the substituted plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. They prayed for mentioning in paragraph 11 of the plaint that plaintiff no. 1 has one-third share, plaintiffs 2 and 2(a) have one-third share and plaintiff no. 3 has one-third share in the suit property. No grievance was made before me nor possibly could any be made against the order allowing the amendment. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, in view of the amendment of the plaint, is of the opinion that each set of the plaintiffs is required to pay court-fees on its share of the value of the suit property. Since plaintiffs 1 and 3 were granted permission to sue in forma pauperis, they are not required to pay any court-fee on their two-third share of the property. But the substituted plaintiffs 2 and 2(a) are required to pay ad valorem court-fee only on the value of one-third share of the suit property. In the view he has taken, he has directed them to pay their quota of the court-fee. Defendants 5 to 10 have again come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) A preliminiary objection was raised on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4 that since the matter involved is purely a matter of court-fee, the defendants have no locus standi, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Bir Surendra Sahi, ILR 16 Pat. 766 : (AIR 1938 Pat. 22) (FB) and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Rathnavar Maraje v. Vimla, AIR 1961 S.C. 1299 to come up in revision to this Court and ask it to interefere with an order in which the matter of court-fee purely is involved. The preliminary objection, as presented, has force. But the view taken by the court below seems to be so revolutionary on principle that I am inclined to act in this case suo motu, even accepting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties as valid, I may also add that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, it is not purely a matter of court fee; it is inter-connected and interwoven with the matter of pauperism also in view of my decision in Civil Revision 222 of 1963 referred to above. It is a well settled view and practice of this court to entertain civil revisions at the instance of defendants against the order of the courts below granting permission to plaintiffs to sue in forma pauperis. To me it appears, the question before me is not completely divorced from the matter of pauperism involved in the case. And, in that view of the matter also, I have thought it fit to entertain and allow this application, even though the impugned order has been brought to the notice of this Court at the instance of some of the defendants.