Cases Referred:
AIR 1964 SC 457
ALT 1965 (2) 199

The defendants in O.S.No.166 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Family Court, Secunderabad are the appellants in this appeal.

2. Respondent filed the suit on 09.12.1999 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 18.10.1998 executed in her favour or in the alternative for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- and damages of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 18.10.1998 till realisation. After contest by the appellants the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent directing the applicants to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with costs, together with interest at 24% per annum from 18.10.1998 till realisation.

3. Aggrieved by that decree defendants preferred this appeal and paid Court fee of Rs.3,426/- against the granting of a decree for Rs.1,00,000/- against them. Registry took objection that the Court fee paid is not correct and that appellants have to calculate interest at 24% per annum from 18.10.1998 till realisation on that amount also as per the decree and pay Court fee on that amount also. Since the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court fee paid is sufficient, the case is listed for orders relating to the deficiency of the court fee paid.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as explanation III to Section 49 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (for short the Act) contemplates court fee being paid only on the interest pendente lite, but not from the date of cause of action, appellants need not pay court fees on the interest from the date of the agreement i.e 18.10.1998 as sought by the Registry and relied on STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v MISHRI TARACHAND LODHA AND OTHERS(1) and DASARI VENKTACHALAM (DIED) v KANCHUPATLA APPA RAO(2) in support of his contention.

5. The primary relief sought in the suit is specific performance of agreement dated 18.10.1998 and the alternative relief prayed of the plaint is:

“(c) If for any reason the court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being reimbursement of the advance consideration of Rs. one lakh originally paid along with requisite damages of Rs. 50, 000-00 with interest from 18.10.1998 till realisation @24% per annum.”

In view there of the alternative relief claimed by the respondent is “refund of Rs.1,50,000 with interest at 24% from 18.10.1998 till realisation.” It must be stated that the trial Court, before registering the suit, should have directed the plaintiff to value the alternative relief also and show the court fees payable thereon, because as per the proviso to Section 6(3) (a) of the Act, in case the plaintiff seeks alternative reliefs against the same person(s) on the same cause of action, Court fee has to be collected on the higher of the reliefs claimed. Obviously because the primary relief claimed is higher in value, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff thereon, the suit was registered. The value of the alternative relief claimed in the suit is Rs.1,50,000/- and interest at 24% per annum thereon from 18.10.1998 till the date of suit i.e. 09.12.1999, would be less than Rs.2,00,000/-. Appellants are aggrieved by the trial Court passing a decree for Rs.1,00,000/- with interest against them and admit their liability to pay Rs.50,000 because Ground No.24 of the grounds of appeal reads:

24. The Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit completely and decreed that the plaintiff shall get from the defendants Rs.50,000/- only out of the advance amount of Rs.1, 00, 000/- with interest at 24% thereon for one month and odd in view of Ex.B.1 and Ex.A19 reply notice on behalf of defendants dated 01.10.1999 and that the defendants are entitled to forfeit the other Rs. 50, 000/- out of the advanced

sum.”

Explanation (4) to Section 49 of the Act reads

“where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed f