MANOHAR RAMCHANDRA HINGE Vs. COLLECTOR OF NASIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed by the Collector of Nasik, representing the Court of Wards, and on behalf of a certain ward, for redemption of certain lands under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. Preliminary issues were framed as to whether the plaintiff, the ward, was an, agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act; and whether he was otherwise entitled to the benefit of that Act. These issues were determined in the plaintiff s favour by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge. The defendant appealed to this Court contending that it should have been held that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist. We, however, were of opinion, that the learned Judge below was right, and we affirmed his finding that the plaintiff is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act.

(2.) The question now involved is as to the basis upon which pleader s fees should be calculated in the defendant s appeal. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the plaintiff has contended for the application of the second clause of Section 52 of Regulation II of 1827, while the Taxing Officer has taken the view that that Regulation does not apply, and that the fees must be assessed under Rule 65 of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court. That rule provides for the allowance of a sum of Rs. 30 in appeals where the provisions of Section 6 of Act I of 1846 and Section 52 of Regulation II of 1827- do not apply.

(3.) The question, therefore, first to be considered is, whether the case falls within the scope of Section 52 of the Regulation; That section consists of two clauses, whereof the first deals with the costs allowable in a suit, and the second with the costs allowable in an appeal. It is provided that in regard to the costs in a suit the pleader is to be entitled " to a percentage on the amount sued for, according to the Rules specified in Appendix L, as a remuneration for his trouble in acting in behalf of his client, until the decree in the suit is passed, and thereafter until such decree is fulfilled." The second clause lays down that the remuneration in respect of an appeal " shall be the same as is above prescribed in the case of an original suit." It is admitted that in the case of an appeal those words must be read as meaning not a percentage on the amount sued for, but a percentage on the amount forming the subject-matter of the appeal.