Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 463 (MAD)

Periyakaruppan v. Solomon

1978-08-04

NAINAR SUNDARAM

body1978
Judgment :- 1. In this revision, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 146 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Tuticorin, is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree cancelling the order passed in R.C.O.P. 54 of 1975 by the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif of Tuticorin. He valued the suit under S. 50 of the Tamil Nadu Court fees Act and paid a fixed court fee. However, the Court below, pursuant to the inspection note of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, proceeded to assess the question and held that the plaintiff ought to value the suit under S. 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and directed him to pay court fees on the value of the property. The present revision is directed against the said order of the court below, d. 23rd March 1977. 2. The question that comes up for consideration in this revision is: whether in a suit of the present nature where the plaintiff seeks to cancel an order passed by the Bent Controller under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, the provisions of S. 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act could be attracted and the plaintiff could be called upon to compute the value of the property for which the order of the Rent Controller was passed and directed to pay court fees on such value? Admittedly, the order of the Rent Controller is not one for money. May be, by virtue of the order, possession of the property concerned can be recovered in execution. However, it is far-fetched to say that the order of the Rent Controller is a ‘decree’. The expression ‘decree’ has not been defined in any of the specific provisions in the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. Sec. 3 Sub-Cl. (iv) states that expressions used and not defined in this Act or in the Madras General Clauses Act., 1891 (Madras Act I of 1891) but defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the said Code. S. 2 (2), C.P.C. defines ‘decree’. Sec. 3 Sub-Cl. (iv) states that expressions used and not defined in this Act or in the Madras General Clauses Act., 1891 (Madras Act I of 1891) but defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the said Code. S. 2 (2), C.P.C. defines ‘decree’. But the order of the Rent Controller cannot be said to be a decree as defined by S. 2 (2), C.P.C. for the simple reason it is not a decree passed by any court in a suit. In Govinda Chettiar v. Uttukottai Co-operative Society I.L.R. 1938 Mad 63=45 L.W. 563, Venkataramana Rao, J. was dealing with a question with reference to payment of court fee in a suit for declaration that the order of a liquidator of a cooperative society determining the amount of contribution payable by the plaintiff under S. 42 (2)(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act is null and void. There the argument projected against the plaintiff was that he must value the claim under S. 7 (IV-A) of the Court fees Act VII of 1870. The learned Judge held that the term ‘decree’ would connote a final order of a court, whether Civil or Revenue, in a suit, and an order passed by an officer or a body which it not a court, but is invested with judicial powers in pursuance of which a liability is fixed on a person to pay a sum of money, will not come within its purview. Here in the present case, the order that is sought to be cancelled is one passed by the Rent Controller constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. So far as the Authorities and Tribunals functioning under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 are concerned, this court has pointed out in a number of decisions that they are not ‘courts’. If this is the position the only conclusion that could be arrived at is, the order of the Rent Controller cannot be stated to be a decree for property within the meaning of S. 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. If this is the position the only conclusion that could be arrived at is, the order of the Rent Controller cannot be stated to be a decree for property within the meaning of S. 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. In Venkatasami Naicker v. Chinnayapuram Cooperative Stores 65 L.W. 153 Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., held that the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot be stated to be a decree and the plaintiff cannot be called upon to pay court fees for its cancellation under S. 7 (IV-A) of the Court Fees Act 1870. The learned Judge followed the dictum of Venkataramana Rao, J. in Govinda Chettiar v. Uttukottai Co-operative society I.L.R. 1938 Mad 63=45 L.W. 563. Applying the above principles, I find that the court below committed an error in calling upon the petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in the suit to value the suit under S. 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. In this view, I am obliged to interfere in revision, and accordingly this revision is allowed, and the valuation as already given in the plaint wilt stand. But, there will be no order as to costs.