Nagalingam v. State Of A.P .

1. The office has raised the objection regarding the amount of court fees which is to be paid by the appellant in this appeal. The appeal is filed against the decree of the District Judge's court, Warangal, in O.S No. 6 of 1957. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition. The appellant herein was added as the second defendant in the suit. Later the plaintiff filed a memo in the trial court giving up his claim against the appellant. But the decree of the trial Court covers the properties which are in the possession of the appellant.

2. The appellant has paid the fixed court fee of O.S Rs. 100/- under Art. 13, Schedule II of the Hyderabad Court Fees Act and has valued the appeal as was done in the suit. It is submited by the office that the appeal should be valued at the amount by which the appellant will be benefitted and ad valorem court fee should be paid, because the decree has directed the plaintiff to pay court fee of 1484-95 P.,

3. The objection raised by the office is not tenable. Art. 13, Schedule II of the Hyderabad Court Fees Act reads as follows:

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in every suit when it is not possible to estimate the money value and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. When the plaint is presented to or Memorandum of appeal is against the decree of (a) A Munsif's Court-Rupees Fifteen. (b) A District Court or a Sub Court or the High Court in exercise of its original ju-risdiction. Rupees one hundred.

4. There is no provison in the Hyderabad Court Fees Act regarding the court fees which should be paid in a suit for partition. A close examination of the provision would show that the court fees payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal “every suit” where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter, a fixed court fee is payable. A suit for partition comes within the ambit of the said provision. An appeal arising out of such a suit will be governed by the same provision.

5. It is immaterial, for purposes of valuation in appeal, as to whether the trial court has fixed the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the partition suit. The language employed in Art. 13 of Schedule II of the Hyderabad Court Fees Act is analogous to that of Art. 17-B, Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Act. In a case arising under the Madras Court Fees Act a somewhat similar question was considered by Umameshwaram, J., in Damisetti Satyanarana Murthi v. Darnisetti Bhavanna(1). The learned judge held that Art. 17-B Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Act is applicable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 100/- is sufficient.

6. Hence the court fees of Rs. 100/- paid by the appellant is sufficient,

7. Orders accordingly.