KARUPPANA THEVAR Vs. ANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this case is, what is the Court-fee payable? Is Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act or Art. 17(6) of Schedule II applicable? The plaintiff who claims to be the reversionary heir of a certain deceased Hindu, has filed the suit questioning an alienation made by the 1 defendant, the latter's widow, and making various charges regarding alleged waste by her of the property. The plaintiff asks substantially for two reliefs (1) for a declaration, that as alienation specifically mentioned in the plaint is not binding upon him and (2) for the appointment of a Receiver to take; possession of the estate from the widow and manage it during her lifetime, The short question to be decided is, is the relief for the appointment of a Receiver a "consequential relief" within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(c). The "words used in that section are "to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." Does the second relief follow as a consequence from the first? I must now turn to the plaint to examine the allegations made in this respect. The plaintiff first states that the widow made a certain alienation and he impeaches it. He then, proceeds to say that the widow has been wasting the estate in the following manner, by allowing debts to become barred by limitation, by making gifts of certain items of property and by executing fraudulent receipts in respect of payments not really, made to her. For the purpose of ascertaining the Court-fee payable, we must have regard to the allegations in the plaint. Whether they have or have not been denied in the written statement, is not a matter which signifies. In order to determine whether the second relief is consequential upon the first, let me see how the position stands. Supposing the first relief is not granted, does it follow that the plaintiff cannot obtain the second relief? The Court may hold that the alienation impeached is good, but if it comes to the conclusion that the widow has been guilty of the other acts alleged, it may appoint a Receiver. Then again, take the converse case. Supposing the Court comes to the conclusion that the alienation is not binding on the estate, does it follow that the second relief will, be granted? It clearly does not, because the Court may find that the particular alienation is bad but that there has not been such waste as to justify the appointment of a Receiver. As a matter of fact there is no necessary connection between the two reliefs. It is quite conceivable of course that the plaint may be so drafted that both the reliefs may be claimed on the strength of the same set of facts. In that case the second relief may properly be said to be consequential upon the first. In the present case, however, the facts are entirely different and as I nave shown, the two reliefs asked for are independent of each other No case binding upon me which takes a different view has been cited and I hold that the proper Court-fee is the aggregate of two sums of Rs. 100 made up thus: (1) Under Schedule II(17)(a)(1) Rs. 100 for declaration and (2) Under Schedule II(17)(b) Rs. 100 for Receiver.

(2.) The plaintiff has paid Rs. 200 and I declare that the proper Court-fee has been paid upon the plaint.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken that the order before me is in the nature of an interlocutory order and no revision petition will, therefore, lie. This contention is unsound, and this Court has often (and I have myself) interfered in revision with orders of this kind. If authority is needed, I may refer to Ramrup Das V/s. Mohunt Surjaram Das 7 Ind. Cas. 92 : 14 C.W.N. 932 : 12 C.L.J. 211 and on this point I am prepared to follow also the decision in Dodda Sannekappa V/s. Sakravva 36 Ind. Cas. 831.