JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :---This matter has been placed before me on a reference made by the Taxing Master. Briefly, the facts leading to the reference are as follows :

The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant claiming following reliefs :

(a) That it may be declared that the defendant has no right title or interest in the said premises situate at Silla Villa, 21 Meghraj Sethi Marg, Bombay Central, Bombay-8 and that he is trespasser in respect of the said premises;

(b) That the defendant be ordered and decreed to vacate and deliver to the plaintiff quiet vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises situate at Silla Villa, 21, Meghraj Sethi Marg, Bombay Central, Bombay-400 008;

(c) that the defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff:

(i) a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as mesne profits and/or damages for the defendants wrongful use and occupation of the said premises till the date of the suit aggregating to Rs. 4,500/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment; and

(ii) mesne profits and/or damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month or at such other rate as this Honble Court deems fit and proper from the date of the suit till the defendant hands over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said ground floor premises to the plaintiff, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of mesne profits and/or damages from the time the said becomes due till payment."

2. In para 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff had valued the said suit for the purpose of payment of Court fees as follows :

The plaintiff values the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 54,500/- which is made upon as under :

(i) Rs. 50,000/- being the value of the said ground floor premises based upon the capitalised value of the compensation of 100 months;

(ii) Rs. 4,500/- being the pecunary claim of the plaintiff upto the date of the suit as per the particulars of claim hereto annexed and marked Ex. "D".

The plaintiff has accordingly paid the Court fees of Rs. 2,580/- on the said plaint.

3. By a judgment and decree dated August 12, 1994, I.G. Shah, J., decreed the suit in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a draft of drawn-up decree in the office for settling the same. In a meeting, which was held before the Taxing Master, it was pointed out to the plaintiff that he is required to pay additional fees on the aggregate amount of mesne profit till the date of the judgment. The plaintiff, however, disputed his liability and, therefore, the Taxing Master has made this reference before this Court.

4. The relevant section of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 with which I am concerned in the present case, is section 13 and it reads as follows ;

13. (1) In a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property and mesne profits or for mesne profits or for an account, the difference, if any, between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or amount found due shall, on delivery of judgment, be taxed by the Court and shall be leviable from the plaintiff and if not paid by him within thirty days from the date of the judgment be recoverable according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue.

(2) The Court shall send a copy of the decree passed in such suit to the Collector.

(3) No decree for mesne profits passed in any such suit by the Court shall be executed, until a certificate to the effect that such difference is paid or recovered signed by the Court which passed the decree or by the Collector who recovered the amount, is produced along with the application for such execution.

Explanation---For the purpose of this section, "plaintiff" includes any party to a suit to whom any profits or amount are or is found to be due.

5. On a plain reading of the section, it is clear that where a claim is for pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document