HARENDRA SHANKAR Vs. KHIALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions that arise for decision in the present case are as to what is the amount of court-fee payable on: (a) a plaint in a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act (27 of 1934), and (b) a memorandum of appeal against a decree passed in such a suit. There is conflict of judicial opinion in this Court on both the points and it is with a view to set at rest that conflict that the present reference to a Full Bench has been made. The answer to the first question depends upon the determination of the question as to whether a suit under Section 33 is a suit for accounts or is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. In the Act as originally passed there was no provision as to the amount of court-fee chargeable on a plaint in a suit under Section 33, nor was there any provision as to the amount at which such a suit is to be valued, and the Section ran as follows: (1) An agriculturist debtor may sue for an account of money lent or advanced to, or paid for, him by any person, or due by him to any person as the price of goods or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money, and of money paid by him to such person. (2) In such suit the Court shall follow the provisions of Chap. IV of this Act and the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. It shall, after taking necessary accounts, declare the amount which is still payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, and shall, on the application of the defendant, and if the money is payable, pass a decree in favour of the defendant. (3) Subject to Section 80(2) or Section 31(2), as the case may be, if the defendant is found to have been overpaid, the Court shall pass a decree for refund of the amount of such overpayment in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Certain amendments were, however, introduced in the section by Act 9 of 1937 and by the amendment so made a schedule of court-fees payable on plaints under Section 33 was added to the Act. After the addition of the new schedule (Schedule 6) the uncertainty as to the amount of court-fee payable on such plaints has ceased to exist as in suits, filed after the Amending Act of 1937, the court-fee fixed by Sch. 6 has to be paid. The doubt as to the proper valuation of such suits was also removed by certain rules framed by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 9, Suits Valuation Act. These rules were published in the Government Gazette, dated 11 January 1936, and are to be found in Chap. 20 of the rules framed by this Court for the Civil Courts. One of these rules, viz., Rule 28 (3), provides that: Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for accounts only, not being suits to recover the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or suits of either of the kinds described in Order 20, Rule 13, Civil P.C. Value (a). For the purposes of the Court fees Act, 1870, as determined by that Act; (b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Such amount exceeding Rs. 100 and not exceeding Rs. 500 as the plaintiff may state in the plaint.

(3.) It is therefore clear that the first question that we have to decide is now more or less a question of academical interest. In the present case, however, the plaint was filed before either the rules mentioned above came into force or the Amending Act was passed, and as such, in the decision of question both the rules and the Amending Act have to be ignored. The first case, Misc. Case No. 597 of Misc. Case No. 597 of 193S, decided on 16 January 1936, Girwar Singh V/s. Peyare Lal on the point, came to this Court on a reference by the Munsif of Koil, Aligarh, under Section 113 read with Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C., and was decided by a Bench consisting of Collister and Bajpai JJ. on 16 January 1936. It was held in that case that a suit under Section 33 was a declaratory suit and the court-fee payable on plaints in such suits was the fixed court-fee of Rs. 10 under Art. 17(iii) of Sch. 2, Court-fees Act. The learned Judges in that case observed as follows: It is quite true that the marginal note against Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, is "suit by debtor for account of money lent", but it is equally true that all that a Court can do on the suit is to take necessary accounts and declare the amount which is still payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. No consequential relief is prayed for and no consequential relief can, ordinarily, in the very nature of things be granted to the plaintiff. In art ordinary suit for accounts, the plaintiff asks not only for rendition of accounts but for a decree in his favour and he has to give a tentative valuation to the suit. The court-fee that then is payable on such a suit is upon the valuation given in the plaint and if, as a matter of fact, a decree for a larger amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff, he has to pay an additional court-fee, but, as stated before, in the present suit it is not permissible to a Court under ordinary circumstances to give a decree in favour of the plaintiff.