Ramachandran vs Anjammal

Anantanarayanan, J.—The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the Courts below. When he appealed to the learned District Judge of East

Tanjore, from the decree dismissing his suit, the learned Judge suo motu took up and scrutinised the matter of the court-fee payable upon the plaint

and the memorandum of appeal. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff (revision petitioner) ought to pay court-fee, not on the ex facie value of

Rs. 1000 recited in his sale deed, but upon the capitalised value of the estimated mesne profits or rent, which was Rs. 2550. The revision petitioner

was therefore directed to amend the valuation and to pay the deficit court-fee both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal. Two questions

arise here for consideration. The first is whether the learned Judge could have at all interfered with regard to the alleged erroneous valuation, at that

stage. This is a question of power and jurisdiction. The second question is whether the conclusion of the learned Judge, on the merits can be

supported.

On both the questions. I think it is clear that the revision petitioner has to succeed. In Janaki Ammal and Another Vs. D. Rangachari, ,

Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as the then was) has analysed the different stages at which the Court could interfere on a matter relating to the court-fee in

the light of the relevant sections of the Court Fees Act. At page 530, the learned Judge has referred to the three stages at which interference would

be permissible. But with regard to the memorandum of appeal, that stage is definitely prior to the registration of the appeal. After the registration of

the appeal, it is only by means of an objection taken by the respondent, or with regard to a request for a decision by the Court-fee Examiner under

S. 18, that the Court could review the court-fee paid. Otherwise, it has no power suo motu to do so. I also agree that on the merits, the conclusion

of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. That conclusion is explicable if there was no other basis available for the valuation. But the price

offered by the plaintiff for the purchase of the property is certainly the ordinary measure of value and the proper basis for court-fee valuation.

Estimation of mesne profits might be inaccurate or exaggerated. That cannot be the basis, upon a formula of capitalisation for the value, unless no

other basis is available. I may add that the learned Government Pleader for the State does not seek to sustain the decision of the learned Judge on

this point.

The revision petition is accordingly allowed, and the order of the learned District Judge set aside. The appeal will now be disposed of according

to law. No order as to costs.