H H SRI MAHANT NARAYANA DOSSJEE VARU SRI MAHANT OF SRI HATHIRAMJEE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are on behalf of the plaintiff. In these appeals, the only question to be decided is one of Court-fee. The plaintiff filed the present suits against the respondent for cancelling the notification of the permanent under-tenure village of Sivanathapaliem in the former permanently settled Estate of Kalahasti as illegal, ultra wires and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The appellant claims to be the owner of the village having purchased the same from a representative of the original grantee. The Government of Andhra Pradesh notified the village as a Zamindari Estate on 12-11-1953 and took over possession of the same on 4-12-53 depositing the advance compensation on the basis of a zamindari estate . The appellant pleaded that the action of the State Government in notifying the village as a zamindari estate and taking over possession thereof was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. He valued the suit in C. F. R. No. 7443 of 1956 for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 50,000.00 and paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 300 and he valued C. F. R. 4742 of 1956 at 30,000/-; C. F. R. 4740 at 40,000/- C. F. R. 248/57 at 10,000/- and C. F. R. 4741 of 1956 at 10,000 and paid different court-fees on the same. The office took an objection that the relief sought by the appellant in the suits was one of Declaration and that Court-fee was payable under Section 24(d) of the Andhra Court-fees Act. The appellant relying on Sections 47 and 50(2) of the Andhra Court-fees Act contended that the court-fee paid was proper. The Court below did not accept the plea of the appellant and found that court-lee had to be paid under Section 24(d) of the Andhra Court-fees Act. Holding so, it directed the appellant to pay the deficit court-fee by 20-2-1957 and as he failed to make the deposit the Court on 21-2-1957 rejected the plaints . It is this order that is now challenged in these appeals.

(3.) As stated earlier, the only point to be decided in these appeals is what is the Court-fee payable?" In order to determine the class under which a suit falls for the purposes of court-fee the substance of the relief as disclosed in the plaints taken as a whole should be looked into and not the form of the prayer in which relief is cast. It follows therefore that it is the allegations in the plaint that determine the court-fete. The relief claimed in the plaints on the face of it is one for cancellation of the notification issued by the respondent with regard to the village of Alatoor, In the plaints, there is no mention that the appellant seeks the relief of declaration that the said notification is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. But it may be noted that the relief of the cancellation of the notification prayed for by the appellant can only be granted if it is established that the said notification is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Considering these circumstances, it appears to me that the allegations in the plaints disclose that the substance of the relief sought for is one for a declaration. Cancellation of the notification, in my opinion, is merely ancillary to the relief of declaration.