Review of the decision taken on Court-fee.

This Civil Revision Petition raises a question as to the amount of Court-fee payable by the petitioners on the Memorandum of Appeal filed by them in A.S. No. 86 of 1958 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, against the decree dismissing their suit in O.S. No. 33 of 1956, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin.

The substantial reliefs sought by the plaint as amended are:

“(a) that the first plaintiff is entitled to the properties described in Schedule A hereto and that the second plaintiff is entitled to the properties mentioned in Schedule B hereto by declaring that the documents, dated 2nd December, 1954, 27th January, 1955 and 16th February, 1955, are not binding as against the interests of the plaintiffs and setting aside the documents of 27th January, 1955, 2nd December, 1954 and 16th February, 1955 ; (6) for possession of the A Schedule property to the first plaintiff and the B Schedule property to the second plaintiff ; and (c) for mesne profits of the said properties from the date of plaint to the date of delivery of possession” .

The plaintiffs are the daughters, and the defendant, the son of one Kothai Ammal who died on 8th March, 1955. Their case is this. Kothai Animal had substantial properties of her own, and under the documents, dated 9th January, 1945 and 22nd February, 1954, gave the plaintiffs certain properties which are specified in Schedules A and B to the plaint. Those documents though in the form of a will, in substance were deeds of settlement, or, at any rate, they resulted in a family arrangement which was accepted and acted upon by all the parties. While so, the defendant by the exercise of undue influence, coercion, etc., procured from Kothai Ammal a deed of settlement, dated 27th January, 1955, and the two documents of a testamentary nature bearing the dates 2nd December, 1954 and 15th February, 1955. The two plaintiffs being thus respectively entitled to A and B Schedule properties, the subsequent documents executed by Kothai Ammal would have no legal effect. Apart from the anterior title pleaded by the plaintiffs, there is no alternative case, viz., that they are, the Stridhanam heirs of Kothai Ammal and that on setting aside the documents, dated 27th January, 1955, 2nd December, 1954 and 16th February, 1955, they would be entitled to recover possession of the properties from the defendant. Thus the plea that the defendant exercised undue influence and coercion over his mother while procuring the aforesaid documents, has no significance whatsoever in respect of the claim in the suit except that it provides a historical background of the circumstances under which they were executed. On the plaint as it stands the documents would have no legal effect, whether they were executed as a result of coercion or undue influence, exercised by him, or otherwise, as, on the dates they were executed, the deceased had no right to dispose of the properties set out in Schedules A and B. The plaintiffs not being assenting parties to the subsequent documents could sustain the suit for possession without a prayer for any declaration and or cancellation of the impugned documents. They could have ignored them. But they have asked for a declaration that the documents are not binding on them and for setting aside the same with a consequential relief of possession. The suit was valued at 30 times the kist payable on the A and B Schedule properties, and a Court-fee of Rs. 413-4-0 was paid. In Paragraph 25 of the plaint, it is stated that the Court-fee is paid under section 40 of the Court-fees Act. That is an obvious mistake: the suit is not valued under section 40: the valuation and Court-fee paid could only have been under section 25 (a) of the Act. This valuation was adopted in the appeal. The Court-fee paid on the appeal was, however, reported to be insufficient by the Court-fee Examiner; the objection was that as each of the plaintiffs had a separate cause of action, each in respect of her claim, Court-