The decision of the court on court fee under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Andhra Act (VII of 1956) is not final and can be reviewed from time to time as occasion requires.

ANATHANARAYANA AYYAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram in O. S. No. 33 of 1957 on his file. ( relevant facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 33 of 1957. Plaintiff filed that suit for possession of plaint A and B schedule properties, after ejecting the defendants there from and for future profits. After the plaint had been presented, an objection had been taken by the office that the valution of the properties was low. There upon, the plaintiff produced registered sale deeds showing a valution between Rs. 500/ to Rs. 1000/ per acre. The plaintiff also represented that the Village Munsif was one of the defendants in the suit and as such, she could not secure certificates of the village officers with regard to the valution of the suit properties. The Head Ministerial Officer put upan office note dated 20-1-1957 to this effect before the predecessor of the learned Subordinate Judge for orders regarding the court fee. That learned Judge heard the plaintiff and finally passed an order on 25-9-1957, as follows: "heard Sri R. V. He filed another sale deed for wet lands. Valution given already is proper. File if otherwise alright. " (3)Subsequently, the defendants filed written statements and twenty one issues were framed. issue No. 18 was whether the court fee paid is not correct. On this issue, both sides let in evidence regarding the valution of the suit properties. The learned Subordinate Judge (successor) declined to go into the evidence and passed an order to the following effect: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in my opinion, it is no longer open to me as a successor of my learned predecessor to interfere with the order regarding the adequacy of court fee. The order of my learned predecessor dated 25-1-1957 has become final. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I find on this issue that the Court fee paid is correct. " The first defendant felt aggrieved with that order and, therefore filed this revision petition. (4) In para 14 of his judgement, the learned Subordinate Judge has referred to the circumstances under which his predeccessor passed the original order dated 25-1-1957. In paras 15 to 18, he considered the position of law and has discussed the various decision. He referred to and reliedon Sec. 12 (i) of the Court Fees Act (Act VII of 1870) as amended in Madras which enacts: "every question relating to Valution for purposes of determining the amount of any fee chargeable on a plaint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum as the case may be, is filed, and such a decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. " The learned Subordinate Judgehas referred to the following decisions of the Madras High Court: Lakshmana Ayyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar, 69 Mad LJ 479 : (AIR 1935 Mad 927); In Re: Chukka Durgiah, 1938-2 Mad LJ 647; Alaga Pillai v. Daraiswami Pillai, 1948-2 Mad LJ 551 : (AIR 1949 Mad 413); Mahalakshmamma v. Venkata Narayanamurthi, 1941-1 Mad LJ 796 : (AIR 1941 Mad 626); Gopalakrishna Chetty v. Srimulu Chetty, 1947-1 Mad LJ (N. R. C.) 6 and Venkata Subba Rao v. Venkatarao, 1951-1 Mad LJ 73 : (AIR 1951 Mad 698 ). These decisions were all to the effect that the earlier order of the Judge fixing the Court fee is final for all purposes till the matter is carried to a higher court and that the question of court fee cannot be reopened, and that the matter is pre-eminently one between the Government and the party seeking relief. (5) In the present case, the suit was filed in 1957 after Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valution Act (Andhra Act VII of 1956) came into force in this State with effect from 1-5-1956. Section 79 of the Court-fees Act specifically provides that Central Act VII of 1870, in its application to the State of Andhra (in relation to the fees of the type with which we are now concerned in this petition) was repealed. The above deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document