Right to arrears at enhanced rate.

C.S. No. 311 of 1951 on the file of the Original Side of this Court was a suit instituted by one Sathappa Chettiar against one Ramanathan Chettiar for partition and separate possession of a half share of alleged joint family properties described in Schedules B, C and D attached to the plaint and for rendition of accounts in respect of the joint family assets and for other appropriate reliefs usual and incidental in partition actions. For purposes of Court-fee the plaintiff valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 1,000 under section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act and paid an ad valorem Court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0. In regard to the relief for partition a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 100 was paid purporting to be under Article 17-B (Madras) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. For the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff however gave the value as Rs. 15 lakhs. The value of Rs. 15 lakhs was arrived at by valuing the entire properties covered by the Schedules to the plaint at Rs. 30 lakhs and computing the value of the half share claimed by the plaintiff at half that value, namely, Rs. 15 lakhs. The office of the High Court took exception to this mode of valuation adopted by the plaintiff for purposes of Court-fee, and the matter was referred to the Chamber Judge, Krishnaswamy Nayudu, J., who by his order dated 18th October, 1951, held that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was correct and sufficient.

Previous to the institution of the suit the plaintiff’s father one Subbayya had filed a partition suit against the same Ramanathan Chettiar and had entered into a compromise with him and released his claims after receiving due consideration therefor. The plaintiff’s contention in the suit was that the said compromise entered into by his father with the defendant Ramanathan Chettiar was not valid and binding on him.

The suit was tried by Ramaswami Gounder, J., who held that there was a fair and bona fide settlement of the dispute by the plaintiff’s father acting as the manager of his branch, and that the plaintiff was bound by the compromise decree. The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the suit on 22nd September, 1953.

The plaintiff Sathappa Chettiar presented a memorandum of appeal on 1st December, 1953, against the said judgment and decree. On that memorandum he paid the same Court-fee as he did for the plaint. The Office raised objection about the sufficiency of the Court-fee paid and ultimately the matter was referred to a Division Bench consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Rajagopalan, JJ. The learned Judges held1 that the suit and the memorandum of appeal should be valued under the provisions of section 7 (iv) (b) of the Court-fees Act, and that neither section 7 (v) of the Act nor Article 17-B of Scheduc II of the Act was applicable. The plaintiff (appellant) was directed to mention his value for the relief of partition, as it was incumbent upon him to do so under the provisions of section 7 (iv) (b) of the Act.

In compliance with this order the appellant (plaintiff) valued the relief to enforce partition of the joint family properties in the suit at Rs. 50,000 and paid the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 1,662-7-0 and re-presented the memorandum of appeal on 7th May, 1954.

But the troubles of the appellant in the matter of payment of Court-fee were not over. The Office took a further objection on the ground that the appellant (plaintiff) was precluded from giving a fresh valuation under section 7 (iv) (b) of Rs. 50,000 inasmuch as he had already valued the claim for purposes of jurisdiction in the plaint at Rs. 15 lakhs. In effect the plaintiff (appellant) was called upon to pay an ad valorem Court-fee on Rs. 15 lakhs compelling him to adopt that as the notional valuation under section 7 (iv) (b) of the Act. This position was disputed by the appellant with the result that the matter was again placed before another Division Bench consisting of Rajagopalan, J., and one of us, who heard the matter. The view was then taken2 that it