Skip to content


Vellora Kabuppan Vettil Chiyanchebi Chathukutty Nair Vs. Kallur Vengayil Chathukutti Nair and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Mad611(1); 78Ind.Cas.118
AppellantVellora Kabuppan Vettil Chiyanchebi Chathukutty Nair
RespondentKallur Vengayil Chathukutti Nair and ors.
Cases ReferredChappan v. Paru
Excerpt:
court-fees act (vii of 1870), 7 (iv) (c) - suit for cancellation of samudayam deed and for injunction and accounts--plaintiff not party to deed--valuation--suit for removal of several trustee--removal of each trustee, whether separate relief. - - the sub-judge has found that the first relief prayed for is the cancellation of the plaint samu-dayam deed, but in this he is clearly wrong, for plaintiff is not a party to the deed and merely wants a declaration that the deed is not binding on the devaswom. 3. his suit in respect of these reliefs comes under section 7, iv, (c), the court-fees act, 1870, and the recently added proviso to the section does not affect the case, for we are satisfied that the samudayam deed does not create any charge on immoveable property......for removal is the same in the case of each, i.e., the execution of the samudayam deed, and we do not think that the removal of each trustee can be treated as a separate relief. the declaration in respect to 13th defendant and appointment of plaintiff comes under article 17-b. also and the fee is rs. 100. plaintiff is, therefore, liable to pay two separate fees of rs. 100 each and an ad valorem fee on the declared value of the first declaration above-mentioned and the consequental reliefs. plaintiff's valuation of rs. 185 may be accepted.4. as regards the valuation of the relief in regard to the trustees we think that plaintiff should retain the original value of his suit for purposes of jurisdiction and, therefore, the value of the two reliefs combined must be taken as rs. 9,815.5......
Judgment:

1. This appeal relates to a question of Court-fees on the plaint. The Sub-Judge has found that the first relief prayed for is the cancellation of the plaint Samu-dayam deed, but in this he is clearly wrong, for plaintiff is not a party to the deed and merely wants a declaration that the deed is not binding on the Devaswom. For authority we may refer to Unni v. Kunchiamma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. 19, Ramaswamy Nadan v. Subramania Nadan 40 Ind. Cas. 690 : 32 M.L.J. 447 Chappan v. Paru 15 Ind. Cas. 587 : 87 M. 420 : 13 M.L.T. 118 and respondents' Vakil does not seriously dispute this conclusion.

2. Plaintiff also asks for an injunction and accounts as reliefs consequential on this declaration.

3. His suit in respect of these reliefs comes under Section 7, iv, (c), The Court-Fees Act, 1870, and the recently added proviso to the section does not affect the case, for we are satisfied that the Samudayam deed does not create any charge on immoveable property. Plaintiff is entitled to place his own valuation on these reliefs which he has done, but he has made the mistake of giving one value for purposes of jurisdiction and another value for Court fee valuation and this must be corrected. Further reliefs asked in the plaint are the removal of eight trustees and a declaration that 13th defendant is unfit to succeed his Kamavan as trustee. Article 17 B. of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act, as amended (Act V of 1922) is applicable to the former relief but we think that the Sub-judge was wrong in asking for a separate fee of Rs. 100 for each of the 8 trustees, for the ground for removal is the same in the case of each, i.e., the execution of the Samudayam deed, and we do not think that the removal of each trustee can be treated as a separate relief. The declaration in respect to 13th defendant and appointment of plaintiff comes under Article 17-B. also and the fee is Rs. 100. Plaintiff is, therefore, liable to pay two separate fees of Rs. 100 each and an ad valorem fee on the declared value of the first declaration above-mentioned and the consequental reliefs. Plaintiff's valuation of Rs. 185 may be accepted.

4. As regards the valuation of the relief in regard to the trustees we think that plaintiff should retain the original value of his suit for purposes of jurisdiction and, therefore, the value of the two reliefs combined must be taken as Rs. 9,815.

5. The costs of this appeal will be the costs in the suit. Plaintiff will, therefore, be allowed to amend his valuation in the plaint as ordered above, and the suit will be remanded for disposal according to law. The stamp on this Memo, of Appeal will be refunded.

6. The balance of fee due on the plaint must be paid within one week of receipt of records in the lower Court.


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