POLAMMAL Vs. KRATHNA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a simple question of Court-fee. A suit was filed for specific performance of a contract of sale valued at Rs. 800 with an alternative prayer for a decree for a refund of Rs. 75 paid as advance and for damages of Rs. 725. For rather curious reasons, the Court-fee Examiner made the objection that a double Court-fee was payable on these reliefs. The ground he gave was that the relief of specific performance or for refund of advance arose out of the same cause of action, the contract of sale, but that the claim for Rs. 725 damages arose not out of the contract but out of the breach of contract.

(2.) THE learned District Munsiff was, apparently, satisfied with this curious reasoning and directed payment of the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 82-1-0. In this case of alternative reliefs arising out of the same contract only one Court-fee is payable on the relief which is more highly valued. This is, in accordance with existing practice and the representative for the learned Government Pleader can cite no decision to support the view taken by the lower Court. THE petition is allowed. THE deficit Court-fee which is said to have been paid will be refunded. No order as to costs.