RATHNAVARMARAJA Vs. VIMLA
LAWS(SC)-1961-2-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
February 27,1961
RATHNAVARMARAJA
Appellant
VERSUS
VIMLA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KSHITIJ INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD VS. KHORSHED SHAPOOR CHENAI [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-1-44] [REFERRED TO]NAHAR SINGH VS. GANGA SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
KARUPPAIAH THEVAR (DIED) VS. ANANTHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-672] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. GURDEV KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-374] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN MAL MODI VS. RAJASTHAN INVESTORS PVT. LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
M T EMERALD SKY VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2007-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
SANT KAUR VS. KARNAIL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1979-11-103] [REFERRED]
BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO VS. GOKULA BIHARI MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-2011-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
HAUNSAKKA ALIAS INDIRABAI VS. KRISHNAJI CHINTAMANRAO [LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
SREE SREE ISWAR RADHA BEHARI JEW AND SREE SREE ISWAR SALGRAM JEW REPRESENTED BY BASUDEB DAS VS. MALATI P SONI [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUBIMAL KUNDU VS. J. R. AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
PALANISWAMI VS. SUBBARAYA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-1975-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH R DESAI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ARUN R DESAI VS. PUSHPA HOSMANI AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARRAJAN VS. VELLAI VINAYAGAR KOIL [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-1] [REFERRED]
SUMAN GUPTA VS. SHIV NARAIN GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-1988-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAN MOHAN KHEMKA VS. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(CAL)-1983-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. GURBACHAN KOUR [LAWS(J&K)-1991-12-13] [REFERRED]
STATE OF J&K VS. ZAMINDARAN OF VILLAGES KHANPORA [LAWS(J&K)-2004-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ARCHANA DAUGHTER OF BHIMRAO RANDAYE, AGED 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION VS. DR. SAU. KAVITA WIFE OF DILIP CHANGOLE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DREAMLAND ESTATE AND ORS. VS. NAINA SAAGI [LAWS(UTN)-2015-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHAHATO KUER VS. DEOSHAKHI KUER [LAWS(PAT)-1966-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM VS. USMAN GANI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KAUR VS. DARSHAN SINGH SAHI [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
S. SUNDARAMURTHY AND ORS. VS. SARASWATHI LAKSHMANAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-331] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALSAMY JAYARAMAN (DIED) VS. KOTHANDARAMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. LAJWANTI DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-1971-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR GROVER VS. PARMESHRI DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-1965-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
KOUTIKI SAHU VS. BASANT KUMAR NEPAK [LAWS(ORI)-2016-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJIT BEHERA VS. BHAJA MEHER [LAWS(ORI)-1968-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
BENUDHAR JENA VS. PRABIR CHANDRA [LAWS(ORI)-1984-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
G KRISHNAMURTHY VS. SARANGAPANI [LAWS(MAD)-1996-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
A. PAULIAH VS. T. GNANASIGAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE THOMAS VS. SRIVIDYA [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-108] [REFERRED TO]
R. RAVICHANDRAN VS. THE CORPORATION OF CHENNAI BY ITS COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-263] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMU VS. BALAN [LAWS(KER)-2001-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ SHETTY VS. A.A. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-171] [REFERRED TO]
CHILLAKURU GHENCHURAMI REDDY VS. KANUPURU CHENCHURAM REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1967-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
RACLHA KRISHNA DAGA VS. GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY [LAWS(CAL)-1969-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAIN VS. WILLIAMS [LAWS(ALL)-1976-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL KUMAR GHOSH VS. BHAGWAN SHAW [LAWS(CAL)-1980-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
PRABEEN CHANDRA DUTTA VS. MOHAMMAD IDRIS [LAWS(PAT)-1970-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEO RAI ALIAS SATDEO SINGH VS. BHAIRAV SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1996-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. SANAMDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-224] [REFERRED TO]
P S KARUNAKARAN VS. MADRAS RACE CLUB [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
GOKUL VS. DURGALAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
SANATKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1967-3-15] [REFERRED]
ARJAN MOTORS MALOUT PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. GIRDHARA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1977-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
Prafulla Chandra Das VS. Anem Bhengra @ Munda [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
AYESHA VS. HIRAWATI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-267] [REFERRED TO]
MUNISWAMY AND ORS. VS. J. VIJAY KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-289] [REFERRED TO]
SUSEELA VS. A S L RAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-1999-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
THANGAVEL VS. DHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2002-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
S SHESHAPPA VS. HILDA MANORAMA DEVADATTA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
DANISH VS. SYED SHAHENSHAH HUSAIN ALIAS SYED SILAS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU TIWARI VS. PRAMOD DUBEY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-215] [REFERRED TO]
U.K. APPU VS. UMA DEVI RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-1973-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA VS. RAJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2024-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
HARDAYAL VS. JAGGASINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
PURNEETA SETHI VS. RITU SETHI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-764] [REFERRED TO]
BHARPOOR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. LACHHMAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM OF FAKIRCHAND MAKANDAS VS. SHRI JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA ABHINAYA SACHIHIDAVAND TIRTH [LAWS(GJH)-1969-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
SANTRA DEVI VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
S.N.S.SUKUMARAN VS. C.THANGAMUTHU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
R KAMALA ALIAS CHELLU ALIAS MRS L S PARTHASARATHI VS. K RAJAGOPALACHARI [LAWS(MAD)-1962-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
KAMARAJ NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VS. K MUTHU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
MANICKLAL VERMA VS. JAMANADEVI [LAWS(KAR)-2002-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
VEERAGOUDA VS. SHANTAKUMAR ALIAS SHANTAPPAGOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR LAL SHARMA VS. BABULAL [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-285] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR BEDI TEJA SINGH VS. CENTRAL GURUDWARA COMMITTEE HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1996-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
JAINEX FOODS PVT LTD VS. MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SAHAKARI DUDH MAHASANGH MARYADIT [LAWS(BOM)-2010-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
BINA ROY VS. BASANTI BHATTACHARYA [LAWS(CAL)-2008-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAM RAM VS. SARVESHWARI SAMOOH KUSHTHA SEVASHRAM RAJGHAT [LAWS(ALL)-1994-9-82] [FOLLOWED ON]
SAMBHU NATH SINGH VS. SANKARANANDA BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1981-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN MUTTAPPA ATTAVAR N KRISHNA BHAT DR K P VASANTHA SHETTY DR K R VS. HARENDRA SAKARLAL PARIKH MRS MARTHA MAMTHA ATTAVAR SANTOSH MANMOHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-120] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR AHUJA VS. WAZEER CHAND AHUJA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-278] [REFERRED TO]
A NAWAB JOHN VS. V N SUBRAMANIYAM [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHEELCHAND BHAGWANDAS JAIN VS. BABULAL BHAGWANDAS JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-1978-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA VS. NARINDER PAL SINGH JUDGE [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. M/S. RAJA STEEL WORKS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
REGILA PREM VS. CHELLAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-601] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. RAJINDER PRASHAD [LAWS(SC)-1973-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN RAI ALIAS JANARDAN PRASAD ROY VS. RAJENDRA PATHAK [LAWS(PAT)-2006-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
S. AJIT SINGH KOHAR VS. SHASHI KANT [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-367] [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM VS. PARSINI [LAWS(P&H)-1973-3-23] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH VS. BRIJ LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
TH ANEES AHAMED VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
G KRISHNAMURTHY VS. SARANGAPANI [LAWS(MAD)-1996-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFFAR VS. SUDHA KANTA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1984-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
ILA CHOUDHURY VS. MAYA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD VARMA VS. GOVERDHAN DASS [LAWS(ALL)-1974-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
M/S A.V. AMPOULES & VIALS PVT. LTD. VS. ABDUL RASHEED AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
HARI PRASAD SAPKOTA VS. KRISHNA PRASAD [LAWS(SIK)-1984-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. HUDIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-1988-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
HYDROSE VS. MAKKAR [LAWS(KER)-1982-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RATNA KUMARI VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2012-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASHO VS. VIDYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1989-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. RAMASAMY VS. VASUMATHY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-405] [REFERRED TO]
S K KUMARASWAMI VS. S R SOMASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-1994-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD VS. BANU STEEL INDUSTRY MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-2010-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
VISVARAMA HOTELS LTD VS. ANJUMAN E IMAMIA [LAWS(KAR)-1984-8-9] [FOLLOWED ON]
PREM DULARI VS. RAJ KUMARI [LAWS(J&K)-1964-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAN PRASAD VS. MOHANLAL [LAWS(CAL)-1986-11-12] [FOLLOWED ON]
NASIRUDDIN MALLICK VS. ABDUL AZIZ MALLICK [LAWS(CAL)-1986-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ELECTRICALS VS. ADDL CIVL JUDGE SITAPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
N.P.LALAN VS. LAKSHMIDAS NARAYANA DAS [LAWS(KER)-1972-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
WE-BUILD PVT LTD VS. C KAMALESWARAN [LAWS(KER)-1981-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
VASU VS. CHAKKI MANI [LAWS(KER)-1961-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
HARICHARAN VS. M. OJHA [LAWS(MPH)-2000-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA MITTAL ALIAS MANJU RANI VS. SOHAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL SINGH AND ORS. VS. GURBINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-416] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. FARIRUDDIN QUERESHI N [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-160] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. K VENKATESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1981-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI MATHRA DASS VS. RAM KALI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-1969-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. DADU DAYAL TRUST [LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
PABAN KUMAR TULSHYAN VS. PRAHALLAD RAI AGARWALA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1990-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1968-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
Sports Authority of India VS. Private Eye Investigation Security Services [LAWS(KAR)-2000-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
GEMINI CONTINENTAL P LTD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN MUTTAPPA ATTAVAR VS. HARENDRA SAKARLAL PARIKH [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR KASHYAP @ RAJU KASHYAP VS. SPL JUDGE CBI COURT NO. 1 / A.D.J LKO AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN TRINGLE FORT and PALACE PVT LTD VS. RAJKUMARI SIDHI KUMARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. INDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-273] [REFERRED TO]
SARABJIT KAUR VS. AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-209] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH & ANOTHER VS. KAMLESH & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-199] [REFERRED]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. NARAYANAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1983-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
MD ALAM VS. GOPAL SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1987-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
HMM INFRA LTD VS. CHAUDHARY ENGINEERING & FABRICATION [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-219] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR VS. MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2020-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
JASVEER KAUR VS. KIRANPREET KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI AMMA VS. DEVAKI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-210] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. MOHAMMED SAYEED [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT RATANSHI KOTHARI VS. RATANSHI DAMJI KOTHARI [LAWS(GJH)-1970-2-3] [REFERRED]
SAGAR TALKIES BARODA VS. YOGESHKUMAR AMBALAL THAKKAR [LAWS(GJH)-1975-8-15] [REFERRED]
AJAYAKUMER VS. JYOTHI [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-390] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA MOHANTO VS. RAJKISHORE MOHANTO [LAWS(ORI)-1964-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
SRIBATSA PANDA VS. SITARAM PADHI [LAWS(ORI)-1964-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
EMARESAN VS. RADHA [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY VS. SHIVKALI AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
MEREY JOSEPH VS. DEVASSY [LAWS(KER)-2012-3-320] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUNDA NAYAK VS. SUNDARA NAYAK [LAWS(KAR)-1969-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
NANDGANJ SIHORI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. BADRI NATH DIXIT [LAWS(ALL)-1993-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. GURBACHAN KAUR [LAWS(J&K)-1991-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MINA RAM VS. AMOLAK RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1965-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ BHIKAMCHAND KUCHERIA VS. SONU SATU PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-275] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT BALKRISHNA NAIK VS. GOVIND DATTA GAUNDALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1976-1-41] [REFERRED]
BAIDYA NATH KARMAKAR VS. GOLAK NATH KARMAKAR [LAWS(CAL)-1970-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIPAL VS. MUMTAZ BEGUM [LAWS(CHH)-2010-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA CHARAN DAS VS. TH MOHINI BEHARIJI MAHARAJ [LAWS(ALL)-1974-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DHANDHANIA VS. CIVIL JUDGE SR DIVN [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSHI VS. VITH ADDL DISTT JUDGE SULTANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-266] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK SHIVHARE AND ANOTHER VS. WAQF MASZID AND KABRISTAN KAZI NOORUDDIN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Smt. Vimla - hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - filed suit No. 73 of 1956 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, south Kanara, for a decree for possession of lands, buildings, house-sites described in sch. A and movable properties described in sch. B and for mesne profits in respect of properties described in sch. A and for a decree "for possession and management" and for account of the properties described in sch. C and institutions alleged to be the private family religious endowments in sch. D. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of her father Shri Dharmasthala Manjayya Heggade on August 31, 1955, she became entitled to the properties in suit but the defendant wrongfully possessed himself of those properties. The plaintiff valued the properties in schs. C and D under S. 28 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, at Rs. 21,000 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 275. She valued the lands in schedule A for purposes of jurisdiction at 30 times the assessment and separately valued the buildings and paid court-fee on that footing. On June 28, 1956, the subordinate Judge ordered on an objection raised by his office that the amount of Rs. 34,577 paid as court-fee by the plaintiff was adequate. Then followed a course of proceedings for which not many precedents may be found. On September 9, 1950, the defendant filed his written statement raising an objection inter alia to the valuation of the properties in suit and the court-fee exigible on the claim. The Trial Court then raised an issue about the adequacy of the court-fee, paid by the plaintiff. On February 13, 1957, the defendant applied for the appointment of a Commissioner to value the properties. The court dismissed the application and declared that the courtfee paid was adequate. In Revision Petition 272 of 1957 preferred by the defendant to the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore, the order passed by the Subordinate Judge was set aside and it was directed that the trial court do "ascertain the value of the properties for purposes of court-fee in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties and if need be by appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit Schedule properties and decide the issue afresh on merits. " Pursuant to this direction, a Commissioner was appointed by the Subordinate Judge. The Commissioner submitted his report as to valuation of the properties. Objections were raised by the defendant to that report and a further report was submitted by the Commissioner. On the direction of the Subordinate Judge, a supplemental report was submitted by the Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the Subordinate Judge held that the properties described in sch. D were "extra commercium" and fixed court-fee was exigible in respect of the claim for possession thereof, that properties described in sch. D were "trust properties" and S. 28 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act applied thereto as the dispute related to the right of management between persons claiming to be rival trustees, that the houses built on revenue paying lands had to be valued according to their market value and not at 30 times the land assessment and that the lands in sch. A were worth Rs. 7,74,665 and the house-sites were worth Rs. 27,625. The plaintiff paid the additional court-fee as directed by the court. Against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff and the defendant applied by separate petitions in revision to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court heard the Advocate-General of the State and substantially confirmed the order passed by the sub-ordinate Judge except as to an institution described as "Nelliyadi Beedu", in respect of which the High Court directed the trial court to determine whether the institution was "extra commercium" after giving an opportunity to both parties to put forth their contentions and to lead evidence in that behalf. Against that order of the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the defendant with special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
(2.)The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may fee aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been pain by the plaintiff has still no right to more the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to more the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission in passed by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon sub-sec. (2) of S. 12. That sub-section, in so far as it is material, provides:
"Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid......"
(3.)But this section only enables the defendant to raise a contention as to the proper court-fee payable on a plaint and to assist the court in arriving at a just decision on that question. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the Madras Courtfees Act or any other statute which enables the defendant to move the High Court in revision against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court-fee payable in a plaint. The Act, it is true by S. 19 provides that for the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of the suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the Court may hold such enquiry as it considers proper and issue a commission to any other person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and report thereon. The anxiety of the Legislature to collect court-fee due from the litigant is manifest from the detailed provisions made in Ch. III of the Act, but those provisions do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the court-fee payable. In our view, the High Court grievously erred in entertaining revision applications on questions of court-fee at the instance of the defendant, when no question of jurisdiction was involved.
(2.)The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may fee aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been pain by the plaintiff has still no right to more the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to more the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission in passed by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon sub-sec. (2) of S. 12. That sub-section, in so far as it is material, provides:
"Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid......"
(3.)But this section only enables the defendant to raise a contention as to the proper court-fee payable on a plaint and to assist the court in arriving at a just decision on that question. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the Madras Courtfees Act or any other statute which enables the defendant to move the High Court in revision against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court-fee payable in a plaint. The Act, it is true by S. 19 provides that for the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of the suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the Court may hold such enquiry as it considers proper and issue a commission to any other person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and report thereon. The anxiety of the Legislature to collect court-fee due from the litigant is manifest from the detailed provisions made in Ch. III of the Act, but those provisions do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the court-fee payable. In our view, the High Court grievously erred in entertaining revision applications on questions of court-fee at the instance of the defendant, when no question of jurisdiction was involved.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.