Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. —The question which we have to consider is whether the court fee payable in this appeal is governed by Art. 1 of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act or by Art. 17(i) of Schedule II of the Act.

2. The brief facts which are essential for a proper determination of the matter are that the former State of Bharatpur had granted a lease in favour of the plaintiffs for quarrying ballast from the hills in Roopwas Tehsil for a period of five years commencing from 1.6.1945 on a royalty of Rs. 32,000/- payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 1,600/-each, subject to certain conditions. The lessees appeared to have failed to pay the stipulated amount and the quarterly instalments fell in arrears. On 24.9.1946, the then Government of Bharatpur terminated the lease and directed the lease to be re-auctioned, and the deficiency, if any, to be realised from the plaintiffs according to the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs then offered to pay all the arrears due with interest at 9% per annum and prayed to the then Government that their lease be continued, which offer was accepted by the Government. It appears that the lessees paid the arrears for some time and thereafter again defaulted, with the result that the lease was again cancelled by the Government. In the meantime, the State of Bharatpur merged in the State of Matsya Union. The remaining period of the lease was re-auctioned in favour of the highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 3,700/- per annum. The Government of Rajasthan which ultimately succeeded to the former State of Bharatpur, then issued notice to the plaintiffs demanding payment of Rs. 16,406/6 which, according to them, remained unpaid out of the original sum of Rs. 32,000/- and when the plaintiffs did not satisfy the demand, a certificate under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. V of 1952) was issued for recovering the same. In the certificate proceedings, it appears that the plaintiffs objected to the issue of the certificate, but could not obtain any relief; and eventually, they instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the certificate issued against them under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act should be declared void and ineffective. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs paid ad valorem court-fee on the amount for which the certificate had been issued against them. In this Court, Mr. Rastogi contends that ad-valorem court-fee is not payable on the memo of appeal, but that a fixed court-fee under Schedule II Art. 17(i) is the requisite court-fee payable which he has affixed on the memorandum of appeal. The office has objected to the amount of court-fee paid and accordingly, the matter has been laid before us.

3. It is obvious from the relief claimed in the suit that although the relief has been framed as if in a suit for declaration; but, in substance, the suit is for cancellation of the certificate which has been issued against the plaintiffs. Under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, on receipt of any requisition for a public demand referred to in sec. 3, the Collector, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable under the Act and that its recovery is not barred by any law for the time being in force, may sign certificate to that effect in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the demand and the account on which it is due. A notice of the certificate is to be served upon the defaulter and then under sec. 8 of the Act, the defaulter is authorized within the period of limitation mentioned therein to present to the Collector a petition denying his liability in whole or in part. The Collector then forwards such a petition to the officer or authority charged with the realisation of the public demand for disposal and the sec. also provides that the officer or authority shall then hear and determine the petition and communicate the result to the Collector. The Collector on that communication, may set aside, modify or vary the certi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document