VAI KM VAYYAPURI VATHIAR Vs. RSOMIANARAYANA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai directing the plaintiffs to pay court-fee on an amount of Rs. 14,200. The plaintiffs claiming to be the hereditary trustees of a temple instituted the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs management of the suit temple and its properties, delivery of cash and moveables collected on 13 March, 1945 and declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole trustees and managers of the Poeisolla Meyyar Ayyanar temple at Sankarapuram. These reliefs were valued separately. As regards the injunction they paid court-fee of Rs. 100 under Section 7, Clause (iv)(d) of the Court-Fees Act. As regards the relief for account they paid court-fee of a sum of Rs. 400 under Section 7, Clause (i); for declaration they paid a fixed fee of Rs. 100 under Schedule II, Art. 17-B. The Court below on a consideration of the allegations in the plaint came to the conclusion that the relief for declaration and injunction fell under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, the relief for injunction being consequential on the relief for declaration. THIS view of the learned Judge is no doubt correct but under the proviso to Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act added by the Madras Amendment, where the relief sought is with reference to any immoveable property, such valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immoveable property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of Section 7. The learned Judge in the Court below has taken into consideration in arriving at the value on the basis of the proviso the moveable properties also which, in my opinion, is wrong. The immoveable property owned by the temple consists of a cocoanut tope of the extent of 12 or 13 acres and it is also alleged that the temple also owns other lands about which I am not able to find evidence on record, The learned Judge valued this tope under Section 7, Clause (0), Sub-clause (e) as if it is a garden and, therefore, directed the plaintiffs to pay the court-fees on half the market value of that property. From the plaint it will be seen that this tope is really an inam land falling under Section 7, Clause (v)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. Under this Clause the value for purposes of court-fee is 15 times the net profits. In Kullappa Goundan V/s. Abdul Rahim (1916) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 824 it has been held that if the land is assessed land falling under Section 7, Clause (v)(b), the fact that there is a cocoanut tope in such land would not bring such land under Section 7, Clause (0)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. On the analogy of that decision I think where the land is inam land falling under Section 7, Clause (0)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, the fact that there are cocoanut trees in the land is no ground for requiring the land to be valued on such basis. I therefore hold that the cocoanut tope should be valued on the basis of 15 times the net profits. There is no evidence on record regarding the profits from this tope. I am therefore unable to fix the court-fee payable on that basis. The learned Judge in the Court below will, therefore, fix the value of the tope on that basis, exclude the value of the moveables and include the value of any other lands which the temple is proved to own on the basis of valuation under Section 7, Clause (0) of the Court-Fees Act and give an oppor-tunity to the plaintiff to pay court-fee on half such value. Of course, under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value arrived at under Section 7, Clause (to)(c) will also be the value for purposes of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the plaint have given separate valuations for injunction and for declaration which of course on that basis would be the value also for purposes of jurisdiction. But now it has been held in this case that the declaration and injunction are reliefs falling under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c); the value as given in the plaint for those reliefs need not be added for purposes of jurisdiction. The only addition that should be made for the valuation arrived at under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) is the value given in the plaint for accounts, namely, the sum of Rs. 400. THIS amount will be added to the amount ascertained under the proviso to Section 7, Clause (to)(c) for purposes of arriving at the value of jurisdiction.

(2.) THE result is that this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded for disposal in the light of this judgment. THEre will be no order for costs in this Court.