ABDUL SAMAD KHAN Vs. ANJUMAN ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been, laid before ns for orders on the plaintiff-appellant failing to make good an alleged; deficiency in the Court fees paid by him on the plaint in the trial Court, on his memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court and on his memorandum of appeal presented in this Court.

(2.) The suit was for a declaration that a deed of gift or endowment, dated 14 October 1925, apparently executed by Mirza Wazirali Beg in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the houses...is illegal and ineffectual as against the plaintiff and that the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) A Court-fee of Rs. 20 was paid in the trial Court, as the relief sought was supposed to involve two declarations. The suit was valued at Rs. 2,000. No question, as to Court-fee arose in the trial Court. The suit was dismissed on the merits. An. appeal to the lower appellate Court was also dismissed. In that Court also a fee of Rs. 20 was paid and no question regarding its sufficiency was raised. A second appeal was filed in this Court as far back as 6 July 1931, on a Court- fee of Es 20. No-objection seems to have been taken to the sufficiency of the Court-fee till comparatively recently, when the stamp reporter made a note on the 4 November 1932, after the paper book was ready, that advalorem court-fee should nave been paid on the plaint, on the memorandum of appeal in the lower Court and on the memorandum of appeal in this Court. According to him there was a total deficiency of Rs. 315 after making allowance for the Rs. 20 paid in each of the three Courts. The stamp reporter's report was shown to Mr. Haribans Sahai, advocate of the appellant, on the 8 November 1932, when he affixed his signature in token of having seen the report. Under Rule 11, Chap. 3, of the Rules of this Court, the stamp reporter's report should be contested within three weeks, and in default the accuracy of the report is not liable to be subsequently contested. If the report had been contested within the aforesaid time, the case would have been laid before the Taxing Officer whose decision would have been final under Section 5, Court-fees Act. It is open to question whether the Taxing Officer's decision which is final so far as Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in this Court is concerned or is equally so in respect of the court-fee payable in the trial Court and in the lower appellate Court. In the view of the case we are inclined to take, this question does not fall to be decided.