SRI RATNAVARAMARAJA versus SMT. VIMLA.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 27-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
, 
; 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1015 
SRI RATNAVARAMARAJA 
v. 
SMT. VIMLA. 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Court Fees-Question of adequacy-If could be raised by defend-
ant in appeal-Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, r955 
(Mad. r4 of I955), s. ra(2)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of r908), 
S. II5. 
The question was whether the defendant was entitled to 
raise a grievance and contest the valuation of the properties in 
dispute as if it were a matter in issue between the plain tiff and 
himself and could seek to invoke the High Court in its revisional 
jurisdiction against the order adjudging court fees payable on the 
plaint. 
Held, that the Court Fees Act is enacted to collect revenue 
and not to be used as a technical weapon by the defendant for 
obstructing the progress of the suit by approaching the High 
Court in its revisional jurisdiction against the order determining 
and adjudging court fees payable on the plaint. 
That section 12(2) of the Madras Court Fees Act, r955, only 
enabled the defendant to assist the court in arriving at a just 
decision on the question of court fees payable on the plaint. 
That in the instant case the High Court grievously erred in 
entertaining revision application on the question of court fees at 
the instance of the defendant when no question of jurisdiction 
was involved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
624of1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated Ma.} 30, 1960 of the Mysore High Court in Civil 
Revision Petition No. 1098 of 1959. 
K. R. Karanth 
and 
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the 
appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and 
G. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, for the State of 
Mysore (On Notice issued by the Court). 
1961. February 27. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SHAH, J .-Smt. Virola-hereinafter referred to as the 
plaintiff-filed suit No. 73 of 1956 in the court of the 
Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, for a. decree for 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1961] 
r96i 
possession of lands, buildings, house-site.~ described 
~ 
in sch. A and movable properties described in sch. B 
Ratn•v•;;,,,.,0i• and for mcsne profits in respect of properties des-
v. 
cribed in sch. A and for a decree for possession and 
SmJ. Vim/a 
management and for accou;it of the properties des-
cribed in sch. C and institutions alleged to he the 
private family religious endowments in sch. D. The 
plaintiff claimed that on the death of her father Shri 
Dharmasthala Manjayya Heggade on August 31, 1955, 
she became entitled to the properties in suit but the 
defendant wrongfully possessed himself of those 
properties. The plaintiff valued the properties in 
schs. C and D under s. 28 of the Madras Court-fees 
and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 at Ri. 21,000/- and 
paid a court.fee of Rs. 275/-. She valued the lands 
in schednle A for purposes of jurisdiction at 30 times 
the assessment and separately valued the buildings 
and paid court-fee on that footing. On June 28, 1956, 
the Subordinate Judge ordered on an objection raised 
by his office that the amount of Rs. 34,577/- paid as 
court-fee by the plaintiff was adequate. Then fol-
lowed a course of proceedings for which not many 
precedents may be found. On September G, 1950, the 
defendant filed his written statement raising an 
objection inter alia to the valuation of the properties 
in suit and the court-fee exigible on the claim. The 
trial court then raised an issue about the adequacy 
of the court-fee, paid by the plaintiff. On February 13, 
1957, the defendant applied for the appointment of a 
Commissioner to value the properties. The court 
dismissed the application and declared that the court. 
fee paid was adequate. In Revision Petition 272 of 
195i preferred by the defendant to the High Court 
of Judicature at Bangalore, the order passed by the 
Subordinate Judge was set aside and it was directed 
that the trial court do " ascertain the value of the 
properties for purposes of court-fee in accordance with 
law after giving full opportunity to the parties and 
if need be by appointing a Commissioner to ascertii.in 
the present market value of the suit Schedule proper-
ties and decide the issue a.fresh on merits." Pursuant 
to this direction, a Commissioner was appointed by 
Shah]. 
• 
'· • 
• 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1017 
the Subordinate Judge. The Commissioner submitted 
his report as to va

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.