BASWANAPPA v. STATE OF MYSORE — 1970 DIGILAW 59 (KAR)

( 1 ) THE question raised in this Revision Petition by the plaintiff is one of court fee. He is an excise contractor. At a certain excise auction he offered a bid. For reasons stated in the plaint, the said autction was cancelled and a fresh auction was held at which the bid which could be secured was much lower than the earlier one. The appropriate authorities determined the loss caused to the Government at Rs. 7,627 and made a demand for its payment by the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenges the legality of the auction on various grounds and concludes his plaint with a prayer in the following terms:"that the plaintiff's suit be decreed against the defendant as follows: (1) The defendant be restrained perpetually from recovering the excise dues under an illegal contract, for retail vend of Narayangud foreign Liquor for 1954-55, which is not at all enforceable against the plaintiff and (2 ). . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . "both the Courts below read this prayer as involving a prayer for declaration of illegality of the contract and considered the prayer as one for a relief consequential upon such a declaration. ( 2 ) BOTH the Courts agree that the appropriate provision of the Court fees Act applicable to the situation is Cl. (d) of S. 24 of the Mysore Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958:"24. Suits for declaration.-In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25. (a ). . . . . . (b ). . . . . . (c ). . . . . . (d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees two hundred and fifty whichever is higher. " ( 3 ) IT is seen that the plaintiff placed a valuation of Rs. 200 on the relief. But according to the plain language of S. 24 (d) there could be no doubt that he should have paid court fee on Rs. 250, which is the minimum valuation permitted by the clause. " ( 3 ) IT is seen that the plaintiff placed a valuation of Rs. 200 on the relief. But according to the plain language of S. 24 (d) there could be no doubt that he should have paid court fee on Rs. 250, which is the minimum valuation permitted by the clause. That position is not disputed before me by either the plaintiff's Counsel or the learned Government Pleader. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the plaintiff is that inspite of the clear language employed in S. 24 (d) both the Courts have called upon him to pay court fee ad valorem on Rs. 7,627 sought to be recovered from him by the Excise authorities. This grievance of the plaintiff is justified. For making such an order against the plaintiff the Courts have given no reasons, except that in substance what the plaintiff is trying to do is to prevent the Excise authorities from recovering from him the sum of Rs. 7,627 determined by them as the loss caused by him. In that view they say that the relief was clearly capable of valuation and the proper and correct value of the relief on such a valuation could only be on Rs. 7,627. This is clearly an error committed by both the Courts below. S. 24 (d) gives the liberty to the plaintiff to place his own valuation on the relief, subject only to the condition that if such valuation is below Rs. 250 the plaintiff is bound to pay court fee on Rs. 250. This is clear from the language of the clause "whether the relief is capable of valuation or not". Hence, the discussion on the question whether the prayer was capable of valuation appears to me to be irrelevant and beyond the scope of the relevant clause. ( 5 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, allowed and it is declared that the proper court fee payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 18-75 on the plaint and Rs. 18-75 on the memorandum of appeal before the lower Appellate court; the excess over that sum collected from him in the trial Court in respect of the plaint shall be refunded to him. The lower Appellate court will issue an appropriate certificate enabling the plaintiff to secure the refund. 18-75 on the plaint and Rs. 18-75 on the memorandum of appeal before the lower Appellate court; the excess over that sum collected from him in the trial Court in respect of the plaint shall be refunded to him. The lower Appellate court will issue an appropriate certificate enabling the plaintiff to secure the refund. ( 6 ) THIS order together with the papers will be despatched to the lower appellate Court by to-morrow evening and that Court will take the appeal on its file, hear it on merits and dispose of the same before the end of june 1970. --- *** --- .