Kumaran Balakrishan vs Sankaran Oommini

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1960 Supreme(Ker) 47

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.T.RAMAN NAYAR, J.
Kumaran Balakrishan
Versus
Sankaran Oommini
C.R.P. No. 964 of 1959, from order of Munsiffs Cou
Decided On : 24-02-1960

Important Points

Plaintiff's responsibility to prove proper valuation and payment of court fees, and bear the cost of the commission initially.

Subject

Court Fees - Commission Costs

Act Referred

COURT FEES ACT : S.9

Headnote

Court Fees - Commission - Plaintiff's Responsibility

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff must prove proper valuation and payment of court fees for the plaint. The court issued a commission under the relevant court fees act, and the plaintiff was required to bear the cost initially.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition with costs, holding that the plaintiff must satisfy the court regarding proper valuation and payment of court fees, and bear the cost of the commission initially.

Issues: Proper valuation and payment of court fees, plaintiff's responsibility for commission costs

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff is responsible for proving proper valuation and payment of court fees, and must bear the cost of the commission initially, as per the relevant court fees act.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

Advocates:
N. Raghavan, for Petitioner; K.C. John, for Respondents.

ORDER :- It is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that his plaint has been properly valued and that proper court fee has-been paid on it. When therefore the Court sees reason to issue a commission under S. 6 of the Travancore Cochin Court-fees Act; 1125 (corresponding to S. 9 of the Court-fees Act, 1870), albeit on objection taken by the defendant, it seems to me obvious that the plaintiff must bear the cost of the commission in the first instance; and doubtless if the objection turns out to be ill-founded the court will direct re-imbursement by the defendant. I think the power to direct the plaintiff to deposit the cost of the commission necessarily inheres in the section and this is the view taken in Basanta Kumar v. Kalikrishna, 47 Cal WN 373 and in Thimpathaiah v. Mangapathi Rao, AIR 1948 Madras 345. With the observation in Jalekna Bibi v. Danis Mahomed, AIR 1930 Cal 65 at p. 68, that there is no power to require the plaintiff to deposit the costs of the commission unless it is ordered at his instance I am in respectful disagreement.

2. I dismiss the petition with costs.

Petition dismissed.