PENMETCHA ANANDA VIJAYA VENKATRAMA TIMMA JAGAPATHI RAJU Vs. GUDUMOGULA TATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE C. R. Ps. raise a somewhat ticklish question whether the Court -fee is payable on amounts deposited towards future mesne profits and drawn out by the plaintiff under orders of Court, relating to which a decree for future profits has not been passed.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this question are these: The suits. O. S. 219 of 1946 and 354 of 1946 were filed in the Court of the district Munsif, Tanuku. for ejectment of the tenants after due determination of their tenancy and for recovery of past rents and future profits. The suits were decreed for possession and for rents already accrued due and an enquiry was directed in respect of future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12a C. P. C.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the second appeals in the High Court of Madras, the defendants -tenants obtained orders of stay of delivery of possession subject to the condition that they deposited certain amounts towards future profits. The plaintiffs were given, liberty to draw those amounts deposited without furnishing security. It would appear that the amounts were deposited -it would not be necessary to set out the actual amounts - and were drawn out by the plaintiffs without any objection. It would appear in the Supreme Court also they obtained similar orders during the pendency of the appeals. Pursuant thereto, the amounts were deposited and withdrawn by the plaintiffs without any objection.