Skip to content


Ratan Singh Vs. Khem Karan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All228(1); 44Ind.Cas.608
AppellantRatan Singh
RespondentKhem Karan
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), schedule ii, articles 5, 17(iii) - agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 95--suit for declaration of occupancy rights--court-fee payable. - - prima facie the suit falls clearly within schedule ii, article 5, of the court fees act, which lays down that on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy a court fee of eight annas should be paid......act, which lays down that on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy a court fee of eight annas should be paid. the only difficulty in the case arises by reason of two previous judges of this court having in similar cases directed that a fee of rs. 10 was 'payable. in neither of these decisions was schedule ii, article 5, apparently considered. the suit is not one to which article 17 (iii) schedule ii, of the court fees act is applicable. as i have said above, it is purely a declaratory suit, and nothing more, in which the plaintiff seeks to establish that he has a right of occupancy. in my opinion the law is plain and the appeal is governed by schedule ii, article 5, of the court fees act and the court-fee payable is eight annas according.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration, under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, that he has occupancy rights in a certain holding. The suit is purely a declaratory suit. The question is, what is the Court-fee payable on the appeal. Prima facie the suit falls clearly within Schedule II, Article 5, of the Court Fees Act, which lays down that on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy a Court fee of eight annas should be paid. The only difficulty in the case arises by reason of two previous Judges of this Court having in similar cases directed that a fee of Rs. 10 was 'payable. In neither of these decisions was Schedule II, Article 5, apparently considered. The suit is not one to which Article 17 (iii) Schedule II, of the Court Fees Act is applicable. As I have said above, it is purely a declaratory suit, and nothing more, in which the plaintiff seeks to establish that he has a right of occupancy. In my opinion the law is plain and the appeal is governed by Schedule II, Article 5, of the Court Fees Act and the Court-fee payable is eight annas according thereto. I so direct.


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