Skip to content


Srimat Prativadi Bhayenkaram Annam Govinda Charlu Ayyavarlu Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Kocherlakota Ramachendra Venkata Krishna Rao Bahadur Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1894)4MLJ181
AppellantSrimat Prativadi Bhayenkaram Annam Govinda Charlu Ayyavarlu Garu
RespondentSri Rajah Kocherlakota Ramachendra Venkata Krishna Rao Bahadur Garu and ors.
Excerpt:
- - but that clause is clearly not applicable to this case because the character of this suit is not one of those mentioned in that clause......opinion by a reference to art. 17 of the second schedule to the court pees act which classifies a suit for a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed with 'every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute.' holding then that the case falls under rule 35 of the legal practitioners' act we are of opinion that the judge in the court below should have fixed a reasonable fee regard being had to the time occupied in the preparation and the hearing of the case and the nature of the questions raised therein. we have sufficient materials on the record before us to do this and according to section 565 of the code of civil procedure we do not doubt our power to exercise the discretion which should ordinarily have been exercised.....
Judgment:

1. This was a suit for a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act of 1877. It was dismissed with costs which were calculated at Rs. 656-8-0. The plaintiff appeals against such taxation and claims that a reasonable fee under Clause 35 of the Rules framed, under the Legal Practitioners' Act should have been allowed, the suit being one in which the subject matter of the claim did not admit of valuation. The costs as taxed were evidently taxed under Clause 31 of the Rules alluded to. But that clause is clearly not applicable to this case because the character of this suit is not one of those mentioned in that clause. The only other clause which is applicable is the one quoted by the appellant's pleader, namely, Clause 35, and we consider the case falls within the temps of that rule as being one in which the subject matter of the claim did not admit of valuation. A declaratory suit can only be valued by the measure of the consequential relief sued for. When no consequential relief is sued for, as in this case there is nothing left to determine the value of the action. We are fortified is this opinion by a reference to Art. 17 of the second Schedule to the Court Pees Act which classifies a suit for a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed with 'every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute.' Holding then that the case falls under Rule 35 of the Legal Practitioners' Act we are of opinion that the judge in the court below should have fixed a reasonable fee regard being had to the time occupied in the preparation and the hearing of the case and the nature of the questions raised therein. We have sufficient materials on the record before us to do this and according to Section 565 of the Code of Civil Procedure we do not doubt our power to exercise the discretion which should ordinarily have been exercised by the Lower Court. Considering that the suit was put down for hearing on several different dates, that there was evidence adducible therein though not adduced, and that the legal points were of a somewhat complicated character, we think a fee of Rs. 400 will meet the requirements of the case. We accordingly decree that amount in lieu of the amount awarded as Pleaders' fee by the Subordinate Judge. Bach party will bear his or their own costs in this Court.


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