Skip to content


Troylokya Nath Pal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.188
AppellantTroylokya Nath Pal
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Cases ReferredPajiruddin v. Secretary of State
Excerpt:
court-fee - suit for declaration that plaintiff is raiyat not tenure-holder as recorded in revenue roll, and for settlement of fair and equitable rent--ad valorem court-fee--court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7(iv)(c), schedule ii. article 17 clauses (1) and (iii)--bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 104-ii. - .....and to have fair and equitable rents settled on that basis in respect of their holding's. the suits are brought under the provisions of section 104 h of the act and the sole question that arises in these appeals is whether the plaints have been written on paper sufficiently stamped. the appellants contend that the provisions of the court fees act applicable are article 17 of schedule it, clause (i) and clause (iii), while the secretary of state, defendant-respondent, urges that at valorem fees should be paid under section 7(iv)(c), on the sum at which the plaintiffs have valued their suits or the relief sought. we are of opinion that the respondent's contention must prevail. the provisions of section 104-h, sub-section (4) make it clear that suits of this nature are brought to.....
Judgment:

1. In these cases, in a Settlement Revenue Roll prepared under Sections 104A to 104-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, the plaintiffs-appellants have been recorded as ten are-holders. They brought the suits out of which these appeals arise to have it declared that their status is that of ryots with rights of occupancy, and to have fair and equitable rents settled on that basis in respect of their holding's. The suits are brought under the provisions of Section 104 H of the Act and the sole question that arises in these appeals is whether the plaints have been written on paper sufficiently stamped. The appellants contend that the provisions of the Court Fees Act applicable are Article 17 of Schedule It, Clause (i) and Clause (iii), while the Secretary of State, defendant-respondent, urges that at valorem fees should be paid under Section 7(iv)(c), on the sum at which the plaintiffs have valued their suits or the relief sought. We are of opinion that the respondent's contention must prevail. The provisions of Section 104-H, Sub-section (4) make it clear that suits of this nature are brought to obtain consequential relief, viz., the settlement of a fair rent; further in the present cases, there are specific prayers for such relief. We are, therefore, content to follow the decision of this Court, in the case of Pajiruddin v. Secretary of State 16 C.L.J. 383; 17 Ind. Cas. 919. As, however, the case we have just cited was decided after the decision of the first Appellate Court in the present case, we are of opinion that the plaintiffs-appellants should have a further opportunity of paying the deficit Court-fees. We, therefore, direct in each case that if within one month from the arrival of the record in the Court of first instance, the plaintiffs appellants pay into Court the deficit Court-fees and the costs up-to-date of the defendant-respondent in all three Courts, the suits will be heard: if in either case, the plaintiffs-appellants fail to make the payment directed by this order, the appeals will stand dismissed with costs.


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