BIBI PHUL KUMARI Vs. GHANSHYAM MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question in this appeal is what is the proper Court-fee payable on the plaint in the suit. The Act governing the question is the Court-Fees Act (VII of 1870). Proceeding on the theory that what was due was Rs. 20, the appellant stamped her plaint accordingly: her suit was dismiss-ed in the Court of first instance on the ground that her plaint was insufficiently stamped; and this judgment was affirmed by the High Court of Bengal in the judgment now appealed against. The present appeal has been heard ex parte.

(2.) For the right determination of the question at issue it is necessary to ascertain what are the object and the nature of the suit. Now, fortunately, this is not dubious. The plaintiff succinctly and accurately states that the cause of action accrued on 24 April 1899, that being the date of a judgment pronounced against her in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purneah in certain execution proceedings. What had taken her into that Court was this : she had bought a property from the second respondent and had taken possession and was registered as proprietor. After and notwithstanding this, the first respondent, purporting to be a creditor of the second respondent under a decree for Rs. 62,022 attached the property and advertised it for sale. The appellant lodged with the Subordinate Judge of Purneah, before whom the execution proceedings took place, a claim to the property, claiming that her right should be declared and that an injunction should issue against the execution of the decree held by the first respondent. This claim was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on 24 April 1899, and his decree is the cause of action in the suit which gives rise to this appeal.

(3.) Now the right of the appellant to sue for the establishment of her right, which the Subordinate Judge had negatived, rests on the 283 section of the Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882). The party against whom an order under Section 280, 281, or 282 is pass ed may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. This is clear of itself, and the High Court, in the judgment appealed against, describes the suit as "of the nature referred to in Section 283.