Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 855 (MAD)

K. Rukmani v. B. N. Rajarajeswari

1994-10-21

N.ARUMUGHAM

body1994
Judgment : This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in ASSR.No.5317 of 1988 dated 16. 1988 directing the revision petitioner to pay the balance Court-fee of Rs.737.25 within one month time. 2. The brief facts which are necessary to be extracted for the purpose of this revision is as follows: The respondent herein has filed the suit O.S.No.9225 of 1985 for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,480 being the Principal amount of Rs.7,000 with interest accrued thereon at 24% per annum from 7. 1979 onwards, after adjusting the payment of Rs.3,000 made in the middle. The trial court after contest in full trial, passed the decree for the abovesaid sum on 212. 1987 in favour of the respondent herein with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation with costs. Aggrieved at this, the defendant, who is the revision petitioner herein has preferred the appeal for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.9,414 with the Court fee of Rs.407 payable under Sec. 52 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, calculating the subsequent interest at the rate allowed by the trial court. However, the appellate court having considered the nature of the prayer asked for by and on behalf of the appellant that the entire decree should be set aside, have rejected the appeal and declined to take the same into the file for the reason of deficit court-fee paid and the correct valuation of the appeal has not been given. Aggrieved at this, the revision petitioner has preferred the appeal in ASSR.No.17 of 1988 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. After hearing the appeal in full, the lower appellate court has passed the following order: "The appellant is the defendant. A decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.11,480 with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree on the sum of Rs.7,000 and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum has been passed with costs. The defendant has preferred this appeal, but has paid the court-fee of only Rs.407. The office has returned the appeal, stating that the correct court-fee has to be paid. 2. The point for determination is: what is the correct court-fee payable? 3. The defendant has preferred this appeal, but has paid the court-fee of only Rs.407. The office has returned the appeal, stating that the correct court-fee has to be paid. 2. The point for determination is: what is the correct court-fee payable? 3. Point: The amount for which the suit has been decreed is Rs.11,480 interest on the principal amount of Rs.7,000 at the rate of interest at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till date of decree works out to Rs.3,7635. The total amount thus works out to Rs.15,2435. Court-fee payable on the said amount works out to Rs.1,1425. The appellant has prayed for a total dismissal of the suit. She should have therefore, paid court-fee on the total amount of Rs.15,241.35 due as per the decree passed by the trial court. The court-fee payable works out to Rs.1144.25, which is the correct court-fee. The appellant has paid only a court-fee of Rs.407. She is therefore, directed to pay the balance of court-fee Rs.7325. Time one month.” 3. Aggrieved at the abovesaid order, the present revision is canvassed. I have heard the argument of the Bar for the respective parties herein. Sec.52 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act would clinchingly provide that in a case of money decree if an appeal is to be preferred assailing the decree in its entirety for setting aside, then for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction, the valuation should have been arrived at the whole principal amount of the decree with the subsequent interest accrued till the date of filing the appeal and it must be the accepted and settled position of law also. It that being so, on the date of appeal the total valuation of the appeal for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction comes at Rs.15,241.35 with the accrued interest at 6% per annum for the decretal amount. This quantum of the valuation necessitates the appellant to pay a court-fee of Rs.1,144.25 and for which she has paid the court-fee to the extent of Rs.407 only. Therefore, under these circumstances, the revision petitioner has to pay the balance court-fee of Rs.737.25, as directed by the lower appellate court. I do not come across any proposition of law except the one referred above to accept the contention of Mr.M.Kumaraswami. Therefore, under these circumstances, the revision petitioner has to pay the balance court-fee of Rs.737.25, as directed by the lower appellate court. I do not come across any proposition of law except the one referred above to accept the contention of Mr.M.Kumaraswami. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner confined the valuation as estimated by the revision petitioner in the appeal and the quantum of the court-fee. The concept on the basis of which the appeal was valued by the revision petitioner cannot be accepted for no provision of law is available to help her. For the abovesaid reason, I do not find any substance in the revision. On the other hand, I am able to identify that there is every justification and reasoning given in the order passed by the lower appellate court. 4. For all the said reasons given above, the present revision is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs. Under the circumstances of the case, however as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, time to pay deficit court-fee is hereby granted by two months.