Vai Km. Vayyapuri Vathiar vs R. Somianarayana Iyengar and Others

Satyanarayana Rao, J.—This is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai directing the

plaintiffs to pay court-fee on an amount of Rs. 14,200. The plaintiffs claiming to be the hereditary trustees of a temple instituted the suit for a

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs'' management of the suit temple and its properties, delivery of cash

and moveables collected on 13th March, 1945 and declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole trustees and managers of the Poeisolla Meyyar

Ayyanar temple at Sankarapuram. These reliefs were valued separately. As regards the injunction they paid court-fee of Rs. 100 u/s 7, Clause (iv)

(d) of the Court-Fees Act. As regards the relief for account they paid court-fee of a sum of Rs. 400 u/s 7, Clause (i); for declaration they paid a

fixed fee of Rs. 100 under Schedule II, Article 17-B. The Court below on a consideration of the allegations in the plaint came to the conclusion

that the relief for declaration and injunction fell u/s 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, the relief for injunction being consequential on the relief

for declaration. This view of the learned Judge is no doubt correct but under the proviso to Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act added

by the Madras Amendment, where the relief sought is with reference to any Immovable property, such valuation shall not be less than half the value

of the Immovable property calculated in the manner provided for by paragraph (v) of Section 7. The learned Judge in the Court below has taken

into consideration in arriving at the value on the basis of the proviso the moveable properties also which, in my opinion, is wrong. The Immovable

property owned by the temple consists of a cocoanut tope of the extent of 12 or 13 acres and it is also alleged that the temple also owns other

lands about which I am not able to find evidence on record, The learned Judge valued this tope u/s 7, Clause (0), Sub-clause (e) as if it is a garden

and, therefore, directed the plaintiffs to pay the court-fees on half the market value of that property. From the plaint it will be seen that this tope is

really an inam land falling u/s 7, Clause (v)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. Under this Clause the value for purposes of court-fee is 15 times the net

profits. In Kullappa Goundan v. Abdul Rahim ILR (1916) Mad. 824 it has been held that if the land is assessed land falling u/s 7, Clause (v)(b),

the fact that there is a cocoanut tope in such land would not bring such land u/s 7, Clause (0)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. On the analogy of that

decision I think where the land is inam land falling u/s 7, Clause (0)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, the fact that there are cocoanut trees in the land is no

ground for requiring the land to be valued on such basis. I therefore hold that the cocoanut tope should be valued on the basis of 15 times the net

profits. There is no evidence on record regarding the profits from this tope. I am therefore unable to fix the court-fee payable on that basis. The

learned Judge in the Court below will, therefore, fix the value of the tope on that basis, exclude the value of the moveables and include the value of

any other lands which the temple is proved to own on the basis of valuation u/s 7, Clause (0) of the Court-Fees Act and give an oppor-tunity to

the plaintiff to pay court-fee on half such value. Of course, u/s 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value arrived at u/s 7, Clause (to)(c) will also be the

value for purposes of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the plaint have given separate valuations for injunction and for declaration which of course on that

basis would be the value also for purposes of jurisdiction. But now it has been held in this case that the declaration and injunction are reliefs falling

u/s 7, Clause (iv)(c); the value as given in the plaint for those reliefs need not be added for purposes of jurisdiction. The only addition that should

be made for the valuation arrived at u/s 7, Clause (iv)(c) is the value given in the plaint for accounts, namely, the sum of Rs. 400. This amount will

be added to the amount ascertained under the proviso to Section 7, Clause (to)(c) for purposes of arriving at the value of jurisdiction.

The result is that this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded for disposal in the

light of this judgment. There will be no order for costs in this Court.