(KAVALAPPARA) MOOPPIL NAIR Vs. AMMALU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises the question as regards the Court-fee that should be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was one for redemption of a kanom dated 3 November 1899: see paragraph 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the cause of action arose since 4- 11-1911 that is, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of kanom. It has been held by this Court ever since Zamorin of Calicut V/s. Narayana [1882] 5 Mad. 284 (F.B.) that in suits to redeem a kanom mortgage the Court-fee payable by the plaintiff should be in accordance with provisions of Section 9, Clause(7) of the Court Fees Act. There is no question that that fee has been correctly paid by the plaintiff in this case. The fact that he refers to his title in the plaint does not make it obligatory on him to pay any additional Court-fee. The question litigated is his right to redeem.

(2.) The real question for decision has not been considered by the lower Courts. As a matter of fact in obedience to the order of the Court the plaintiff has paid some amount by way of additional Court fee.

(3.) As he has paid the Court fee required by Section 7, Clause9, the lower Court's order asking him to pay additional Court-fee should be set aside.