AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vithayathil J.
The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The suit is for recovery of properties with arrears of rent and future rent and also for damages for waste committed by the Defendants in the plaint properties. There is also a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from cutting any trees from the properties. Court-fee was paid on one year''s ''pattom'' for recovery of possession of the properties, on the arrears of ''pattom'' and damages claimed in the plaint and also for the relief of permanent injunction. The allegations in the plaint relating to the circumstances under which the suit happened to be filed are these: The third Defendant is the wife of the Plaintiff. The second Defendant is the father of the third Defendant and the first Defendant is a cousin of the second Defendant. The second Defendant had a mortgage right over the plaint properties for 28,000 fanams. At the time when the Plaintiff married the third Defendant the second Defendant agreed to give the Plaintiff 22000 fanams and for that amount gave him possession of the plaint properties.
Subsequently, Defendants 1 and 2 trespassed upon the properties with the connivance of the third Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendants 1 and 2 and Ors., and in that case Defendants 1 and 2 contended that they were holding the properties on lease under the Plaintiff. The criminal complaint was thrown out and subsequently the Plaintiff filed this suit. It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint that Defendants 1and 2 trespassed upon the properties. In paragraph 3 it was stated that the contention raised by Defendants 1 and 2 in the criminal case that the properties had been leased to them is not true. But in paragraph 7 it was stated that for treasons mentioned in that paragraph the Plaintiff accepted the lease put forward by Defendants 1 and 2 in the criminal case and that he would be satisfied with a relief on the basis of that lease. He, therefore, prayed for recovery of possession of the properties with arrears orient and future rent.
Defendants 1 and 2 contended ''inter alia'' that the Plaintiff should pay Court-fee on the market value of the properties namely, on the mortgage amount of 22,000 fanams. Issue No. 1 raised in the case related to this question. The trial Court held that Court-fee should be paid on 22,000 fanams and that the suit would not lie in the Munsiff''s Court. The learned Munsiff, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. In appeal filed by the Plaintiff the finding of the trial Court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
The only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the Plaintiff should pay Court-fee on the mortgage amount of 22,000 fanams or only on one year''s rent for the relief for recovery of possession of properties. Although, it is alleged in the plaint that Defendants 1 and 2 trespassed upon the properties and that the case of lease put forward by them in the criminal case is false, the Plaintiff was prepared to accept the lease put forward by the Defendants and he claimed relief in the suit on that basis. It is clearly stated in the plaint that the suit is on the basis of the lease, and the Plaintiff claimed recovery of possession of the properties on that basis alone, and has claimed past and future rent. In the circumstances I fail to see why the suit should not be regarded as one for recovery of possession of properties on the basis of a lease. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the suit is an entirely different question.
So far as the question of Court-fee is concerned, we have only to see the nature of the suit, i.e., whether it is one for recovery of possession of properties on the strength of title or one for recovery of possession on the basis of a lease. The allegations in the plaint that the properties have been actually trespassed upon by the Defendants and that the lease put forward by them in the criminal case is false cannot affect the real nature of the suit. The Plaintiff accepted the lease put forward by the Defendants and claimed relief on that basis. For purposes of Court-fee what the Court has to consider is the nature of the relief sought in the plaint. Reference may be made in this connection to the following observation of Raman Menon C.J. in - Parvathi v. Padmanabhan 34 Trav LR 116 (FB)(A).
The principle that underlies the several provisions of the Court Fees Regulation above summarised, appears to be that suits should be assessed according to their value and such value should be taken to be, generally, the value of the reliefs or claims sought in the plaint. This, it seems to me, is perfectly evident from the language of the Statute.
The learned Chief Justice also observed thus in paragraph 20 of the judgment:
It is one thing to construe a relief actually claimed in a plaint so as to ascertain its real scope and meaning and having done so, to levy fees thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Regulation; it is, however quite Anr. thing, it seems to me, to require a Plaintiff to treat all the findings essential to the relief sought in the plaint as themselves reliefs impliedly claimed by him and then to direct that he should amend his plaint accordingly and pay additional Court-fees on the fresh reliefs thus introduced.
It may also be useful to refer to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Chief Justice in paragraph 63 of the judgment. The learned Chief Justice says:
To sum up my conclusion:
the question whether a suit has been properly valued or not must be decided primarily with reference to the relief sought in the plaint;
the Court, however, is not bound by the strict letter of the plaint, but is at liberty to ascertain what in substance the claim amounts to. But this is no more than saying that the Court is at liberty to construe the plaint;
If the relief sought is one which it is entirely in the discretion of the Court to grant or withhold, it will, as a matter of discretion, be withheld if it be found that the Plaintiff''s object in shaping his prayer in the form he has done was to evade payment of the fees which according to the Statute he should have paid.
If, however, the relief be not discretionary but one which the Plaintiff is entitled to claim as a matter of right and if on that relief he has paid the fees as fixed by the Regulation, the Court will be bound to grant it;
But if, in respect of a cause of action, the Plaintiff omits to sue for all the reliefs which result therefrom he would be precluded from suing for them in a subsequent suit;
The advantage which a suitor may obtain solely from the operation of the rule of ''res judicata'' is not a relief for which he is bound to pay fees under the Court Fees Regulation.
Applying the above principles it is clear that the Plaintiff is bound to pay Court-fee in this suit only for the relief actually claimed by him in the suit, namely, recovery of possession of the properties on the basis of a lease, The Courts below have, therefore gone wrong in dismissing the suit. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for disposal on the merits. The Plaintiff will get refund of the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.
The second appeal is allowed with costs.