SANGRAM SINGH Vs. BEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a preliminary point has arisen whether the court-fee stamp affixed to this appeal is of the proper value. This case began as suit for possession and compensation brought in the court of the Assistant Collector dated 20. 11. 53. At that time the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 was in force. IN accordance with the provisions of that Act a Court fee stamp of Rs. 29. 4. 0 was affixed to the plaint. On 23. 6. 56 an appeal was brought by the present appellant in the Court of the Commissioner and the court fee tendered by way of stamps was the same as for the plaint. IN this second appeal the Court-fee stamp that has been affixed is of the value of Rs. 2/ -. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this case though it began under the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdication) Act, 1951 was continued as a proceeding under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by virtue of sec. 206 thereof. From this he has developed the argument that the court fee payable for this second appeal should he as laid down in the Tenancy Act since this is an appeal under that Act. He has in this connection referred to item 39 of the First Schedule to the Act which prescribes the court fee for appellate decrees. IN column 6 against this item meant for indicating the court fee, the entry is "same as on a plaint. " The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this means that the court fee in appeal would be the same as the court fee prescribed in the aforesaid schedule for a plaint in a suit for possession on compensation which is 00. 50 n. p. vide item 28 of the schdl. This con tention must be upheld. The meaning of the expression "as on a plaint" would in the natural sense of the language connotes the same amount of stamp fee as is required on a plaint under the Tenancy Act which is 00. 50 np. The court fee already paid is 2/- which is excess of what is due. The appeal will, therefore, proceed. .