JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) I have had the advantage and benefit of perusing the judgments of my learned brothers Kumarayya J. , and Venkatesam, J. As the contentions, urged before us having been set out by Kumarayya, J, in his judgment. I find it unnecessary to reiterate them in any great detail.

( 2 ) THE question before us is what is the court-fee payable under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called "the Act") on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C PC. Order 7 Rule 11 mentions four grounds on any one of which a plaint may be rejected. It reads thus:"the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, failed to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time, if any granted by the Court: (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law "it may at once be noticed that in so far as the reasons for rejection in Clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, the subject-matter of appeal is capable of valuation, while the cases in Clauses (a) and (d) are incapable of valuation. In A. A. O. Nos. 176 to 179 of 1965, as pointed out by both my learned brothers, the Subordinate Judge gave findings after full trial on all the points touching the merits as well as on the question of the suits, being bad for non-compliance with sections 53 and 54 of the Orissa Court of Wards Act, 1947, by omitting to give the required suit notices. On each of the memoranda of appeal, court-fee of Rs. 10/ was paid under Article 3 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act, on the ground that it is an appeal under Section 47 C. P. C. to the High Court against an order of the Subordinate Judge which relates to a suit of the value exceeding Rs. 1000. 00. The sufficiency of the court-fee paid is sought to be sustained on the ground that even though the prayer in each of the appeals is that a decree may be passed as prayed for, nonetheless the relief is confined only to the order rejecting the plaint; or, in the alternative, it is contended that the dismissal of the suit is an order under Section 47 C. P. C, relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree. I agree with the view expressed by my learned brother Venkatesam. J. that the court has jurisdiction to give a finding on all the issues notwithstanding the fact that the question of maintainability of the suit is also one of the issues raised before it and that if in giving a finding on all the issues, it nonetheless comes to a conclusion that the suit is not maintainable, that is not to deny the jurisdiction of the Court to give the findings on the other issues or to make those findings non est for the purpose of considering the value of the subject matter in appeal The very order declaring the suits to be not maintainable for not giving notices under sections 53 and 54 of the Orissa Court of Wards Act is being challenged in appeal and if the appellant is successful, the Appellate Court could also go into the merits and adjudicate upon the findings given by the trial Court. The memorandum of appeal is therefore capable of valuation and certainly covered by Section 49 of the Act which provides that the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of First Instance on the subject matter of the appeal. The instant case is governed by the main Section itself without having to apply the proviso or any of the Explanations thereto. Under the Indian Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Article I of Schedule I contained general provision for payment of court-fee on a memorandum of appeal, the value being the value of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document