Skip to content


Vijyalakshmi Ammal Vs. K.R. Srinivasa Ayyangar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1934)66MLJ35
AppellantVijyalakshmi Ammal
RespondentK.R. Srinivasa Ayyangar and ors.
Cases ReferredGirish Chandra Mali v. Girish Chandra Dutta
Excerpt:
- - 2. it appears to be well settled that the court has the power under section 151 to grant a certificate in cases not covered by sections 13, 14 and 15 of the court-fees act. there appears to be no doubt that the revenue authorities are not bound to make a refund to the party even if he has obtained a certificate of the court, as they apparently are bound to do in the case of certificates under sections 13, 14 and 15 of the court-fees act which distinctly say that the certificates in those cases authorise the party obtaining the certificate to receive the excess court-fee paid back from the collector. i think it is therefore clearly wrong to order a refund of the court-fee on a certificate as appears to have been done in some of the cases quoted......from the collector. i think it is therefore clearly wrong to order a refund of the court-fee on a certificate as appears to have been done in some of the cases quoted. the court has no power to order refund or even to give a certificate to say that a party is entitled to it. a party cannot be said by the court to be entitled to anything which need not be granted to him, and it appears to me that the proper certificate the court should give is that he has paid excess court-fee. if this is the form which the certificate should take it would appear that as a general rule the discretion of the court should be exercised in petitioner's favour, for the discretion is merely confined to the question as to whether the court will give a certificate that the petitioner has in effect paid excess.....
Judgment:

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. The petitioner in this case filed a suit to recover possession of certain immoveable properties. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,000 and a Court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0 was paid thereon. The defendants contested that the market value of the properties was Rs. 4,000 and that the plaintiff has to pay an additional Court-fee. On an issue being raised as to the Court-fee payable the Court found that the correct fee was to be calculated on ten times the kist, i.e., Rs. 125, and that the Court-fee payable was Rs. 14-9-0. It decreed the suit but in awarding costs only ordered a sum of Rs. 14-9-0 to be paid for stamp fee. Petitioner then applied for a certificate for refund of the excess Court-fee paid but the Court refused the application and this Revision Petition is filed against that order.

2. It appears to be well settled that the Court has the power under Section 151 to grant a certificate in cases not covered by Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act. It does not appear to me that the discretion of the Court is barred by the fact that the excess fee was paid by the mistake of the party and not in consequence of any direction by the Court. The case in Thammayya Naidu v. Venkataramanamma I.L.R. (1932) Mad. 641 : : (1932)62MLJ541 would appear to be one where the mistake was that of the party and not of the Court, and certainly several of the cases which the learned Judges have quoted in support of their decision are cases where the over-payment was due to the mistake of the party. I hold therefore that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.

3. The next question is whether this Court should interfere in revision against an order refusing the certificate. One case at least of those quoted in Thammayya Naidu v. Venkataramanamma I.L.R. (1932) Mad. 641 : : (1932)62MLJ541 , i.e., Girish Chandra Mali v. Girish Chandra Dutta 36 C.W.N. 190, is a case where a certificate was issued on a Revision Petition it having been refused by the Lower Court. In considering whether the discretion of the Lower Court in a matter of this sort should be interfered with in revision it is necessary, I think, to see what the certificate to be granted really is. There appears to be no doubt that the Revenue authorities are not bound to make a refund to the party even if he has obtained a certificate of the Court, as they apparently are bound to do in the case of certificates under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act which distinctly say that the certificates in those cases authorise the party obtaining the certificate to receive the excess Court-fee paid back from the Collector. I think it is therefore clearly wrong to order a refund of the Court-fee on a certificate as appears to have been done in some of the cases quoted. The Court has no power to order refund or even to give a certificate to say that a party is entitled to it. A party cannot be said by the Court to be entitled to anything which need not be granted to him, and it appears to me that the proper certificate the Court should give is that he has paid excess Court-fee. If this is the form which the certificate should take it would appear that as a general rule the discretion of the Court should be exercised in petitioner's favour, for the discretion is merely confined to the question as to whether the Court will give a certificate that the petitioner has in effect paid excess fee. If the Court holds it to be a fact then in the absence of special reasons one would expect that it would not refuse issuing a certificate to that effect.

4. I therefore allow this Revision Petition and order that a certificate of the above nature should be granted to the petitioner.


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