CHIRANJI LAL Vs. BOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The plaintiff sued for the redemption of certain property upon payment of Rs. 5,911, which he deposited. The trial Court decreed redemption upon payment of Rs. 7,925 and ordered the plaintiff to deposit the balance of Rs. 2,014 within eight days. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The defendant appealed against the decree. The plaintiff respondent filed cross-objections (1) contesting his liability to pay the further sum of Rs. 2,014; and (2) contesting the disallowance of his costs in the trial Court.

(2.) He paid an ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 2,014 only. The Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that the respondent was liable to pay a further court-fee of Rs. 30 on the amount of costs claimed by him, namely Rs. 625. The respondent's learned advocate contests the correctness of this report. The Taxing Officer agrees with the Chief Inspector but, in view of the general importance of the question, has referred the matter to the High Court for decision. Under Sch. 1, Art. 1, a memorandum of cross-objections is chargeable with an ad valorem fee on the "amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute." The question therefore is whether the costs which were disallowed by the trial Court, and are claimed in the cross-objection, should be included in the "amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute." Looking only at the language of the statute, apart from judicial decisions I should answer the question in the affirmative. The respondent expressly claims a certain sum which was disallowed by the trial Court. In my opinion that sum is part of the "subject matter in dispute" in the appellate Court. This view is supported by the preponderance of judicial decisions. The Chief Inspector relies upon Debendro Mohan Rai V/s. Sona Kuer [1901] 26 All. 291 decided by a Bench of this Court. In that case it was held that where in a memorandum of appeal the disallowance of costs by the lower Court is made the ground of a claim for separate and distinct relief, the value of such distinct relief should be reckoned as part of the subject-matter in dispute for the purposes of Sch. 1, Court-fees Act. This is the only case on this point decided by this High Court which has come to my notice, and it certainly supports the Chief Inspector's view. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in In re Makki [1896] 19 Mad. 350.

(3.) Respondent's advocate seeks to distinguish these rulings on the ground that they relate to memoranda of appeal and that the principle of taxation applicable to a memorandum of appeal is quite different from that applicable to a memorandum of cross-objections. He cites certain rulings, namely Lakhan Singh V/s. Ram Kishan Das [1918] 40 All. 93, Ishdat Tewari V/s. Tameshwar Tewari A.I.R. 1924 All. 175 and Daroga Raut V/s. Mt. Parema Kuar [1918] 3 Pat. L.J. 197 in support of this contention. These rulings however do not help him as they all hold that a cross- objection must bear an ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute, under Sch. 1, Art. 1, even if the court-fee on a memorandum of appeal in the same suit is payable under Sch. 2, Art. 17.