Alamelu Ammal vs Thayarammal

Jagadisan, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvayami, directing the defendant in

the suit to pay court fee upon the value of the improvements which he had claimed in the written stafement in a suit tor redemption.

In paragraphs 10 and 14 of the written statement, the defendant contends that the plaintiff should not be allowed to redeem the othi in any event

without paying the cosh of the improvements effected by the defendant. A sepecific issue has also been framed, issue 3, whether the defendant is

entitled to the costs of improvements, if any, effected by him? Section 8 of the Court-fees Act, 1955 provides that a written statement pleading a

set oft on a counter claim shall be chargeable with court-fee in the same manner as a plaint.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defendant in the suit, is that the claim of the defendant in the written

statement is neither a set off nor a counter claim and therefore Section 8 is not applicable. I am unable to accept that contention. The defendant has

clearly made a claim, which is in the nature of a counter claim against the plaintiff in claiming the value ot improvements said to have been effected

by him. Even under the old Court Fees Act, the decision in Puzhavakkath Madathil Gopala Pattar''s sons Subramanya Iyer and Another Vs.

Puzhavakkath Madathil Gopal Pattar''s sons Lakshmana Ayyar and Others, holds that in cases of this description court-fee is payable.

The decision of the court below is right. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.