Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th November, 1957.
N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P.SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.
S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar, Appellant
Versus
S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan 246 Chettiar, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, and Mr. G. Gopalakrishna, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Dephtary, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. M. S. K. Sastri, Advocate, with him), for Respondent; M/s. A. C. Venkatakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Intervener.
COURT FEES ACT - S. 7 (IV) (B) - SUIT FOR PARTITION - VALUATION OF RELIEF - JURISDICTIONAL VALUE - DIFFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed a suit for partition of joint family properties and an account of the joint family assets managed by the respondent. The plaint was valued at Rs. 1,000 under S. 7 (iv) (f) of the Court Fees Act and a court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0 was paid. For the purposes of jurisdiction, the appellant gave Rs. 15,00,000 as the value of his share. The Registry raised an objection that the plaint should have borne court-fee under S. 7 (v) in respect of the claim for partition. The matter was referred to the Master of the Court and then to the Judge sitting on the Original Side under S. 5 of the Act. The learned Judge held that the appellant was not bound to set aside the prior compromise decree between his father and the respondent and that the plaint was governed by Art. 17-B of Schedule II. The respondent filed a written statement raising several contentions against the appellant's claim for partition and accounts. The trial court held that there was a fair and bona fide settlement of the dispute by the appellant's father acting as the manager of his branch and so the appellant was bound by the compromise decree. The appellant's suit was dismissed. The appellant presented his memorandum of appeal on the same court-fees as the plaint. The Registry again raised the question about the sufficiency of fees paid by the appellant. The matter was referred to the Master and then to a Bench of two judges. The learned judges held that S. 7 (v) of the Act was not applicable to the appellant's claim for partition. Neither was Art. 17-B of Schedule II applicable. They held that the provisions of S. 7 (iv) (b) of the Act applied. The appellant was directed to mention his value for the relief of partition under the said section. The appellant valued his relief at Rs. 50,000, paid the deficit court-fee Rs. 1,662-7-0 and re-presented his memorandum of appeal in court. The Registry raised another objection that the appellant could not value his relief on the memorandum of appeal under S. 7 (iv) (b) without an amendment of the valuation made in the plaint. The appellant offered to file an application for formal amendment of his plaint by substituting Rs. 50,000, in place of Rs. 15,00,000, for the jurisdictional value of his relief. The application was opposed by the respondent & the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the State. The learned judges held that if the appellant had given the value in the first instance for purposes of jurisdiction he was precluded from giving a different value at a later stage. The application was rejected. The learned judges also purported to exercise their jurisdiction under S. 12 (2) of the Act and directed that the appellant should pay deficit court-fees on the basis of Rs. 15,00,000, not only on his memorandum of appeal but also on his plaint.
Finding of the Court:
1. The order passed by the Chamber Judge on 18-10-1951, is not final under S. 5 of the Act since it was not passed under a general or special order appointing the Chamber Judge to hear the reference under S. 5. 2. S. 12 of the Act applies to appeals arising from judgments and decrees passed in suits on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. 3. The learned judges were in error in directing the appellant to pay court-fees on the basis of the valuation of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal because this decision is inconsistent with the earlier order that the proper court-fees to be paid on the memorandum of appeal had to be determined under S. 7 (iv) (b) of the Act. 4. The appellant is justified in contending that the order directing him to pay court-fees both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the valuation for Rs. 15,00,000 is erroneous in law. 5. The amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court-fees payable in respect of the said relief. 6. The value for the purpose of jurisdiction in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) of the Act is dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and that is natural enough.
Issues: 1. Whether the order passed by the Chamber Judge on 18-10-1951, is final under S. 5 of the Act? 2. Whether S. 12 of the Act applies to appeals arising from judgments and decrees passed in suits on the Original Side of the Madras High Court? 3. Whether the learned judges were justified in directing the appellant to pay court-fees on the basis of the valuation of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal? 4. Whether the appellant is justified in contending that the order directing him to pay court-fees both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the valuation for Rs. 15,00,000 is erroneous in law? 5. What is the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order passed by the Chamber Judge on 18-10-1951, is not final under S. 5 of the Act since it was not passed under a general or special order appointing the Chamber Judge to hear the reference under S. 5. 2. S. 12 of the Act applies to appeals arising from judgments and decrees passed in suits on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. 3. The learned judges were in error in directing the appellant to pay court-fees on the basis of the valuation of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal because this decision is inconsistent with the earlier order that the proper court-fees to be paid on the memorandum of appeal had to be determined under S. 7 (iv) (b) of the Act. 4. The appellant is justified in contending that the order directing him to pay court-fees both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the valuation for Rs. 15,00,000 is erroneous in law. 5. The amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court-fees payable in respect of the said relief. 6. The value for the purpose of jurisdiction in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) of the Act is dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees and that is natural enough.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. The appellant directed to pay additional court-fees on his plaint on the basis of the valuation of Rs. 50,000 within two months from today. No further order need be passed in respect of the memorandum of appeal. No order as to costs.
Judgment
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : This is a plaintiff s appeal by special leave against the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 25-1-1955, calling upon him to pay court-fees on the valuation of Rs. 15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal and it raises some interesting questions of law under the provisions of the Court Fees act (which will be described hereafter as the Act).
2. The appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 311 of 1951 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In this suit he had claimed partition of the joint family properties and an account in respect of the joint family assets managed by the respondent. The appellant is the son of Subbiah Chettiar. His case was that Subbiah had been adopted by Lakshmi Achi in 1922. Lakshmi Achi was the widow of the undivided paternal uncle of the respondent. As a result of his adoption Subbiah became a coparcener in his adoptive family and, as Subbiah s son, the appellant claimed to have a share in the joint family properties and in the assets of the joint family and that was the basis on which a claim for partition and accounts was made by the appellant in his suit. In the plaint it had been alleged that Subbiah had filed a suit for partition of his share and had obtained a decree in the trial court. The respondent had taken an appeal against the said decree in the High Court. Pending the appeal the dispute was settled amicably between the parties and in consideration of payment of a specified sum and delivery of possession of certain sites Subbiah agreed to release all his claims and those of his son, the present appellant, in respect of the properties then in suit. According to the appellant, this compromise transaction did not bind the appellant and so he claimed to recover his share ignoring the said transaction between his father and the respondent. The plaint filed by the appellant valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 1,000 under S. 7, (iv) (f) of the Act and a court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0 was paid on the said amount on an ad valorem basis. In regard to the relief for partition the fixed court-fees of Rs. 100 was paid by the appellant under Art. 17-B (Madras) of Schedule II of the Act. For the purposes of jurisdiction, however, the appellant gave Rs. 15,00,000 as the value of his share.
3. It appears that the Registry, on examining the plaint, was inclined to take the view that the plaint should have borne court-fee under S. 7 (v) in respect of the claim for partition. Since the appellant did not accept this view the matter was referred to the Master of the Court who was the taxing officer under the Madras High Court Fees Rules, 1933. The Master felt that the issue raised by the Registry was of some importance and so, in his turn, he referred the dispute to the Judge sitting on the Original Side under S. 5 of the Act. This reference was decided by the Chamber Judge Krishnaswamy Nidu J., on 18-10-1951. The learned Judge held that the appellant was not bound to set aside the prior compromise decree between his father and the respondent and that the plaint was governed by Art. 17-B of the Schedule II. Accordingly the court-fees paid by the appellant in respect of his claim for partition was held to be order.
4. In due course the respondent was served and he filed a written statement raising several contentions against the appellant s claim for partition and accounts. One of the points raised by the respondent was that the compromise and the release deed executed by the appellant s father and the decree that was subsequently passed between the parties were fair and bona fide transactions and, since they amounted to a settlement of the disputed claim by the appellant s father, the plaintiff was bound by them.
5. Ramaswamy Gounder J., who heard the suit tried the respondent s contention about the binding character of the compromise decree as a preliminary issue. The learned judge held that there was a fair and bona fide settlement of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
