Ramasamy Nadan and Others vs Subramania Nadan and Others

The plaint contains two principal prayers, firstly, that certain sales in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 18 made by the Official Receiver

Gopala Aiyar be declared to be not valid in law, and secondly that a fresh receiver be appointed and the properties made over to him. On the first

prayer plaintiffs have paid Rs. 10 that is for the declaratory relief valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 38,000; and the 2nd prayer they

valued at Rs. 100 and have paid thereon an ad-valorem fee of Rs. 7-8-0. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that they ought to have paid ad-

valorem fee on Rs. 38,000. He relies upon certain rulings of this Court in support of that view. We do not think that those rulings really lay down

any such proposition. The case in Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal Vs. Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal, which

follows the case in Chingacham Vittil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vittil Gopala Menon ILR (1906) M. 18 and also the case in Samiya Mavali v.

Minammal ILR (1899) M. 490 were all cases in which the plaintiff was a party to the deed which he wanted to have declared invalid on the

ground of fraud or on similar allegations. But in this case the plaintiffs were no parties to the sales and they seek to have a declaration to the effect

that the sales were brought about by the fraud of the Official Receiver and consequently not valid and binding upon them. As pointed out in a

somewhat similar case in Unni v. Kunchi Amma ILR (1890) M. 26 the claim for the cancellation of the deeds of sales was not a necessary part of

the relief which the plaintiffs were seeking and therefore it was not right to say that the suit was in substance a suit to obtain the cancellation of the

instrument.

Granting that it was so, the plaintiffs were entitled to value the relief as they liked to pay the fee on such valuation. Even if the second prayer may

be taken to amount to consequential relief that would not in our opinion make any difference, because u/s 7 Clause 4 Sub clause (c), the plaintiffs

are liable to pay court fee on their own valuation. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the respondents that as a matter of fact the valuation for

the purposes of court-fee must be taken to be Rs. 38,000 which was the valuation in the plaint for the purposes of jurisdiction. But he overlooks

the fact that the consequential relief on which alone the fee was to be paid at the ad valorem rate has been valued at Rs. 100 which the plaintiffs

were entitled to do and they have paid court fee on that. We do not think therefore that the order of the Subordinate Judge is right. It will be set

aside and the case will be remitted to him for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.