Skip to content


Shahzadi Begam Vs. Mahbub Ali Shah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All353
AppellantShahzadi Begam
RespondentMahbub Ali Shah and ors.
Excerpt:
.....section 1(ii); schedule ii, article 17(iii) - court fee--suit for a sum payable periodically, the reliefs claimed being, first, a declaration of plaintiff's title and, secondly, a specified amount of arrears. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot..........in schedule a.' there is a further prayer for the recovery of rs. 1,800, as arrears. court fees were paid as to the first relief of a sum of rs. 10, it being contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was liable under article 17 of schedule ii of the court fees act to the payment of a court fee of rs. 10 only, an objection was raised in the court below as to the amount of court; fee in respect of this part) of the claim. the learned subordinate judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. the claim was, however, dismissed and an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff to this court.2. the office submitted a report that the amount of court fee, namely. rs. 10, which the plaintiff has paid in regard to relief (a) in the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient,.....
Judgment:

Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Banbrji, J.

1. A question has been raised in this appeal as to the amount of court fee to be paid in respect of relief (a), claimed in paragraph 13 of the plaint. That relief is in the following terms: 'It may be declared as against the defendants that the plaintiff and her descendants, generation after generation, are entitled to receive from the defendants and their representatives Rs. 100 per mensem which is a charge on the property mentioned in Schedule A.' There is a further prayer for the recovery of Rs. 1,800, as arrears. Court fees were paid as to the first relief of a sum of Rs. 10, it being contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was liable under Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act to the payment of a court fee of Rs. 10 only, An objection was raised in the court below as to the amount of court; fee in respect of this part) of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, dismissed and an appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff to this Court.

2. The office submitted a report that the amount of court fee, namely. Rs. 10, which the plaintiff has paid in regard to relief (a) in the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal was insufficient, and Mr. Ryves, on behalf of the Board of Revenue, supports the office report, and urges that the amount of court fee payable by the plaintiff is not the fixed aura of Rs. 10 for this part of the claim but an ad valorem court fee as prescribed in Section 7, Clause (ii), of the Court Fees Act. If the suit had been for a declaratory decree only, without a prayer for consequential relief, Article 17 might have applied; but in the present case the plaintiff claimed not only a declaration of her right to get a periodical payment of Rs. 100 a month, but also a sum of Rs. 1,800, so that there was a prayer for consequential relief in addition to a prayer for a declaratory decree. In this view Article 17 could not apply to the case. ' Section 7 of the Court Fees Act provides in Clause (i)- that in suits for money, including suits for damages, or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or other sums payable periodically, court fee is to be paid according to the amount claimed. Then follows Clause (ii), which is in these terms: 'In suits for maintenance and annuities or other suras payable periodically, according to the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed as payable for one year.' In the present suit the plaintiff has in Clause (a) of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint asked for a declaration that she and her' legal representatives are entitled, generation after generation, to receive from the defendant and from their property Rs. 100 a month. This is a claim for a sum, other than maintenance or. annuity, which is payable periodinally. In a case like this, if Clause (ii) is applicable, the court fee is to be paid on ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. In our opinion this is a case to which Clause (ii) of Section 7 fully applies. The claim is, as stated above, for a declaration of right to a periodical payment and therefore court fee is to be paid on this part of the claim on ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. The sum of Rs. 100 a month is claimed as payable and therefore for one year the amount payable is Rs. 1,200. Court fee is payable on ten times that amount, namely, Rs. 12,000.

3. We allow the appellant three months to make good the deficiency in court fee on the memorandum of appeal-presented in this Court and on the plaint filed in the court below.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //