Rajah of Vizianagaram vs Government of Kerala

Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.—These revision petitions raise the question as regards the proper court-fee payable in a suit filed by a landholder

against the raiyats u/s 193, Madras Estates Land Act, for enhancement of rent. Each revision petition relates to a suit for enhancement of rent

against the raiyats of a particular village, and each of the seven revision petitions relates to each of the seven villages. The grounds for enhancement

alleged in the plaints are the same. The suits having been dismissed, appeals were preferred by the landholder, and the question arose whether

Section 17, Court-fees Act, applied to the case, and whether the court-fee payable in respect of the appeal was the court-fee payable on the total

of the rents of the immovable property to which the suit relates, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint [Section 7(11)

(b)], Court-fees Act, or whether the court-fee payable was the aggregate of the court-fees separately payable in respect of the rent of the holding

of each particular raiyat calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(11)(b), Court-fees Act. The learned District Judge held that

though the practice with all the Divisional Officers of the district and in that District Court was to accept a court-fee paid on the aggregate annual

income sought to be enhanced, yet, as I understand his order, having regard to the fact that each individual raiyat has to pay his own individual rent,

that u/s 98 a suit instituted u/s 193 may in certain circumstances be split up into separate suits for being tried separately, and that it was undeniable

that separate causes of action constitute separate subjects within the meaning of Section 17, Court-fees Act, the objection raised by the court-fees

examiners was correct, and he directed the landholder--appellant--to pay the excess court-fee calculated separately in respect of rent payable in

relation to each holding included in the suit. The landholder has preferred these revision petitions.

The question turns on the construction of Section 17, Court-fees. Act, which says:

Where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the

fees to which the plaints or memoranda of appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this Act.

Then the section proceeds to enact that;

nothing in the section shall be deemed to affect the power conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 9,

i.e., Section 9, Act 8 of 1859, corresponding to Order 1, Rule 2 of the present Code of Civil Procedure, which enables the Court to order

separate trials if that be found to be the more convenient course to follow. It should be noticed that the words used in Section 17 are ""two or more

distinct subjects"" and not "" two or more distinct causes of action."" The distinction is important, because in Ponnammal v. Ramamurda Ayyar

[1915] 38 Mad. 829, a Full Bench of this Court held that a claim for possession of land and a claim for mesne profits constitute separate causes of

action, and separate suits are maintainable in respect of the same, and that the bar Under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C.,would not apply to such

cases. That was a ruling on the Civil Procedure Code, Order 2, Rule 2.

Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Parameswara Pattar, In re AIR 1930 Mad. 833 had to consider the meaning of the words ""distinct

subjects"" in Section 17, Court-fees Act, and, that in connexion with a suit for possession of land and mesne profits, the Full Bench held that the

court-fee payable is on the aggregate value of both reliefs. The Full Bench observed at p. 2 of the report as follows:

The word ""subject"" in this section is somewhat obscure in its meaning, and has been held in some decisions to be not capable of precise definition.

Ordinarily the right of title to the land is the basis for the claim for possession of the land, as also for mesne profits, and it cannot therefore be

deemed that the two claims are so disconnected, without any interrelation, as to form distinct subjects u/s 17 of the aforesaid Act.

Later on it was observed with reference to the argument based on Ponnammal v. Ramamurda Ayyar [1915] 38 Mad. 829 as follows:

The question remains whether separate causes of actions would invariably be the criterion for treating the claims based on them as distinct subjects,

u/s 17, Court-fees Act. In the Full Bench case: Kiskori Lal Roy v. Shatril Chunder Mozumdar [1882] 8 Cal. 593, this does not appear to have

been taken as the deciding test.... The preponderance of authority is in favour of not treating these two claime as ""distinct subjects"" u/s 17, Court-

fees Act.

The Full Bench also remarked that as:

there was no definition of the word ""subject""'' in the Court-fees Act, one need not attempt to define it, but should only be guided by the long

course of practice, and that any doubt or obscurity as to the precise meaning of the word, ""subject"" in Section 17 should be cleared by the

legislature in due course.

The learned District Judge bad not the benefit of this Full Bench decision which was delivered some weeks after his orders in the present cases.

Section 193 enacts that:

a suit for enhancement may be instituted against any number of raiyats collectively, provided (1) all such raiyats are raiyats of the same landholder,

(2) that all the holdings in respect of which the suit is instituted are situate in the same village and (3) that the grounds for enhancement are the

same.

Though Section 30 of the Act enables the landholder to sue for enhancement of rent on various other grounds mentioned in that section, yet in

case he should propose to file a single suit u/s 193 of the Act, he should restrict his rights so far as the suit is concerned and bring himself within the

proviso to Section 193, which restricts his rights to sue for enhancement of rent in particular ways. In that case he has some advantage in the

matter of court fee. In my opinion having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in Parmeswar Pattar, In re AIR 1930 Mad. 833 it is not a

sufficient answer in respect of the point now under consideration to say that the landholder could file separate suits against each of the raiyats of the

village for enhancement and that the causes of action in respect of each raiyat are different. The question is whether the suit filed u/s 193 embraces

distinct subjects."" The suit is one for enhancement of rent on common grounds. It is not for enhancement of rent and for some other reliefs. It was

mentioned that in the decision in Parmeswara Pattar, In re AIR 1930 Mad. 833, the appellant only was represented and that neither the

respondent nor the Government were represented and that notice had not been given to the Government Pleader; but all that is no ground for my

not being bound by the opinion of the Full Bench. The learned District Judge says that the practice all along has been ""to accept a court-fee paid

on the aggregate annual income sought to be enhanced."" The word ""subject"" has not been defined, and it is I think not unreasonable to hold that a

suit u/s 198 does not comprise ""distinct subjects,"" and that the suit of the landholder to enhance the rent upon the particular conditions mentioned in

that section, which should all exist before a suit under that section could be instituted, does not embrace ""distinct subjects"" within the meaning of

Section 17, Court-fees Act. Even if there is any doubt on the matter, being a taxing statute, the subject is entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising

on the words of the taxing statute. I do not propose to go into the several decisions cited before me which refer to causes of action and suits based

on different causes of action, since after the decision of the Full Bench in Parmeswara Pattar, In re AIR 1930 Mad. 833, those considerations are

not conclusive in considering whether a particular suit embraces ""distinct subjects"" within the meaning of Section 17, Court fees Act.

I may note here that under the powers conferred by Section 198, the Collector did not order separate trials as against each of the raiyats in this

particular case. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that the court-fees originally paid on the appeals was correct and that the order of the

learned District Judge directing payment of additional court-fee by the appellant in the District Court should be set aside. In the peculiar

circumstances, I make no orders as to costs of these revision petitions.