V RAMASWAMI GUPTA Vs. PASUPARTHI KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the petitioner. The allegations in the plaint material for consideration of the question at issue are as follows:

(2.) The defendant executed a promissory note bearing date 11 December, 1941, for a sum of Rs. 3,815 in favour of one Padmavathamma. The said promissory note was transferred in favour of the plaintiff on 12 December, 1941. The plaintiff was demanding payment of the amount of principal and interest due under the promissory note but the defendant was postponing payment. Early in December, 1943, the defendant entered into an oral agreement of sale with the plaintiff under which he agreed to sell the house for a sum of Rs. 3,700 which sum had to be adjusted towards part of the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant however did not execute a proper sale deed, though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Finally the defendant denied the contract of sale with the plaintiff and set up an agreement of sale in favour of another. The plaintiff was therefore compelled to the legal proceedings to enforce his rights. He therefore prayed for the following reliefs: (a) a decree granting specific performance of the contract of sale by calling upon the defendant to execute a sale of the property and directing the defendant to pay Rs. 406-7-0 being the balance of the amount due under the promissory note after adjusting the consideration for the sale. (b) in the alternative, for a decree directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,482 being the amount due under the suit promissory note with further interest, if for any reason it be found that the contract of sale was not valid and enforceable.

(3.) He paid a court-fee of Rs. 374-15-0 on the following basis. He valued the relief (a) at Rs. 3,700 for the prayer for specific performance under Section 7(x)(a) of the Court-Fees Act and at Rs. 406-7-0 under Section 7(1) of the Act. The total court-fee payable on this basis was Rs. 361. The alternative relief (b) was valued at Rs. 4,482 and the ad valorem court-fee thereon would be Rs. 374-15-0. So he adopted the high court-fee to be paid for the alternative relief. Objection was taken by the Court that the proper court-fee had not been paid and after notice to the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor held that the suit comprised two distinct subjects and that the plaintiff was therefore bound to pay separate court-fee on each of the reliefs claimed by him under Section 17 of the Court-Fees Act.