Skip to content


Turlapati Venkateswara Rao Vs. Municipal Council, Masulipatam Represented by the Commr., Masulipatam Municipality and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 634 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad284; (1953)2MLJ524
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Schedule - Article 17A(1) and 17B
AppellantTurlapati Venkateswara Rao
RespondentMunicipal Council, Masulipatam Represented by the Commr., Masulipatam Municipality and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV. Parthasarathy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Ramamurthy, Adv. for ;Govt. Pleader
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), article 17-b, schedule ii--suit for declaration that a resolution of municipal council is ultra vires--court-fee payable;a suit filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the citizens and ratepayers of a municipality for a declaration that a resolution passed by the municipal council and all that was done in pursuance thereof were illegal, ultra vires and void, falls under article 17-b of schedule ii of the court fees act. - - .....that as the declaration asked for was in respect of a resolution which related to the market the subject-matter in dispute should be deemed to be the market whose valuation was about rs. 7 lakhs. in his view, therefore, the proper article applicable was article 17-a (1) of schedule ii, court-fees act, and as the value of the market was over rs. 10,000, the proper court-fee was rs. 500. the plaintff had paid only a sum of rs. 100.3. the learned judge was wrong in considering that the subject-matter of the suit was the market. the subject matter of the suit was the resolution whose validity was being impeached. no doubt the resolution related to the market, but that would not make it the subject-matter of the suit. the petitioner had paid sufficient court-fee, viz., rs. 100 under article.....
Judgment:
1. This civil revision petition involves a question of court-fee. The petitioners filed a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the citizens and rate payers of the Masulipatam Municipality for a declaration that a resolution passed by the Municipal Council and alt that was done in pursuance thereof were illegal, 'ultra vires' and void. There was also a prayer for an Injunction restraining the Municipal Council from acting any further in pursuance of the said resolution.

2. I am of opinion that the suit clearly falls under Article 17-B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, was of opinion that as the declaration asked for was In respect of a resolution which related to the market the subject-matter in dispute should be deemed to be the market whose valuation was about Rs. 7 lakhs. In his view, therefore, the proper Article applicable was Article 17-A (1) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act, and as the value of the market was over Rs. 10,000, the proper court-fee was Rs. 500. The plaintff had paid only a sum of Rs. 100.

3. The learned Judge was wrong in considering that the subject-matter of the suit was the market. The subject matter of the suit was the resolution whose validity was being impeached. No doubt the resolution related to the market, but that would not make it the subject-matter of the suit. The petitioner had paid sufficient court-fee, viz., Rs. 100 under Article 17-B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act, which as already mentioned applies.

4. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


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