SENDATTIKALAI PANDIA CHINNA THAMBIAR AVERGAL Vs. VEERAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions relate to suits filed by tenants against the landlord for commutation of grain rents into money rents. The Deputy Collector allowed this commutation and fixed the rate at which it was to be made. The landlord appealed to the District Judge on the ground that the rate fixed was too low and he calculated the value of the relief sought at the difference between the amount fixed by the Deputy Collector and the amount which he alleged to be correct and paid ad valorem fees on the amount. The District Judge has held that this is not correct but that a fee of Rs. 10 should be paid on each appeal under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, Clause 17 (6) holding that it is a suit where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. Now the petitioner applies to have the order of the District Judge set aside.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Government Pleader that no revision can be had in a case of this sort, and he relies on two reported cases from the Patna High Court, Chandramani Koer V/s. Basdeo Narain Singh (1918) 4 Pat LJ 57 and Mussammat Lachmibate Kumari V/s. Nana Kumar Singh (1920) 5 Pat LJ 400. It has, however, been held in Lachmi Amma V/s. Janani Jayan Nambiyar (1893) 4 MLJ 183 that an order under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act is only final as regards the valuation of the suit and not when it relates to the category into which that suit falls and in consequence of this it has been held in two cases in this Court that a revision petition will lie--Muthu Pillai V/s. Muthu Pillai (1922) MWN 831 and Dodda Sannkappa V/s. Sakravva (1916) 36 IC 831. These are decisions of single Judges, but in other cases also revision has been granted without any discussion of the question of whether it is proper to do so. There is a definite conflict of opinion and we do not feel called upon now to decide the point in view of our decision on the merits.

(3.) This suit is in effect a suit for a declaration that the grain rent shall be commuted into money rent at a certain rate and the appeal is to the same effect, namely, that the commutation shall be at a certain rate higher than that fixed by the first Court. It is argued first of all that the case comes under the Court Fees Act, Section 7 (i), which relates to suits for money, but in this case there is no claim for money and certainly the landlord is not entitled to a decree for any amount whatever in this suit.