AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkataraman, J.—This is a case which raises an interesting question of refund of Court-fee claimed u/s 69 of the Madras Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955). The provision reads thus:
Whenever any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, half the amount of all fees
paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been
respectively paid.
Explanation.--The expression ''merits of the claim'' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 12.
The suit was filed for three reliefs: (a) for evicting the Defendant from the premises bearing door No. 49, St. Xavier street, and taking
possession of the premises and the equipment installed there,(b) granting an injunction restraining the Defendant or servants and agents from
exhibiting pictures in the theatre situated in the said premises,(c) directing the Defendant to pay each of the Plaintiffs Rs. 11,250 for damages for
use and damages from 15th November 1959 up to the date of the plaint and future damages at Rs. 150 a day; and (d) costs. Prayer (a) was
valued at Rs. 27,600; prayer (b) at Rs. 4,000 and prayer (c) at Rs. 22,500.
The Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application, Application No. 484 of 1960, for directing the Defendants to deliver possession of the theatre
Murugan Talkies. Arguments were heard and judgment was rendered in favour of the Plaintiffs regarding the first relief and in pursuance of that
judgment the Plaintiffs obtained possession. The question of the liability of the Defendant for damages for use and occupation was left outstanding.
An interim decree was passed on 23rd March 1960, in terms of the above judgment. Subsequently the parties settled out of Court the outstanding
claim of damages also and the following order was passed:
The suit has been withdrawn as settled out of Court. Vide the endorsement of the Plaintiffs on the plaint. The suit is accordingly dismissed without
costs. Half the Court-fee will be refunded if permissible.
The Plaintiffs have now moved for refund of the Court-fee paid on all the three reliefs invoking Section 69 of the Act. Now it is true that no
evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim. Even on the occasion when the prior judgment was delivered only a few documents already
available were looked into and no fresh evidence was recorded. Now it seems to me that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a refund of the Court-fee
paid on all the three reliefs because it cannot be said that in respect of the first relief the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. In fact that
question was submitted for the decision of the Court and a decision was given in favour of the Plaintiffs and the suit was really decreed in respect
of that relief. The question is whether in respect of the other two reliefs half the Court-fee attributable to those reliefs can be refunded.
I think since the reliefs are separable, there can be no objection to refunding half the Court-fees on those two reliefs to the Plaintiffs. In my
opinion the wording in Section 69 itself will permit this because it speaks of claim or claims in the suit, contemplating separate claims which can be
valued separately. At any rate, such a decision will be in keeping with the spirit and intendment of Section 69. Accordingly the Plaintiffs will be
given a refund of half the Court-fee payable on reliefs (b) and (c).