KALLA SURAYYA AND SONS REPRESENTED BY KALLA VENKATARAJU Vs. PROVINCE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF EAST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition was referred to a Bench by Mack, j., as he felt that there was a necessity for an authoritative decision as to the correct Court-fee payable on plaints like the one before him.

(2.) The petitioner filed the suit in the lower Court (in the Court of the District Munsiff, Rajahmundry) (a) for a declaration that the order of assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 24th March, 1946 , was illegal so far as it related to the plaintiff's commission business for the year 1944-45 (b) and for an injunction restraining the defendants from collecting sales-tax on the plaintiff's commission business for 1944-45 (c) and for a further injunction restraining the defendants from lowing sales-tax for the subsequent years on the plaintiff's commission business. In respect of relief (a) he paid a Court-fee of Rs. 15 under Art. 17-A(i) and in respect of reliefs (b) and (c) he paid a Court-fee under Section 7(iv) valuing the subject-matter at Rs. 10 each. In other words, he paid a Court-fee in respect of relief (b) Rs. 1-2-0 and for relief (c) Rs. 1-2-0. When the matter came up before the learned District Munsiff, he was of opinion that Court-fee should be paid under Section 7(iv-A) as he thought that the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was practically a decree and called upon the plaintiff to pay Court-fee on Rs. 2,165 on the ad valorem basis.

(3.) When the revision petition came on for hearing before Mack, J., the petitioner contended on the strength of the decision of Venkataramana Rao, J., in Govinda Cettiar V/s. Uthukoltai Co- operative Society , that the view of the District Munsiff that the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was a "decree" was wrong and the learned Judge thought that the word "decree" used in the Section was capable of a wider meaning and is not restricted to the meaning given to it by Venkataramana Rao, J. In Govinda Chetliar V/s. Uthukottai Co-operative Society (1937) M.L.J. 640 : I.L.R. 1938 Mad. 63, Venkataramana Rao, j., held that the word "decree" in the Section connotes a final order of a Court, whether civil or revenue, in a suit, and an order passed by an officer or a body which is not a Court but is invested with judicial powers in pursuance of which a liability is fixed on a person to pay a sum of money, will not come within its purview.