Chandradhari Singh And Others v. Tipan Prasad Singh .

1. I have heard the learned Government Advocate and Mr. Ganesh Datt Singh on this question. The rule in these cases may be stated as follows:

Where a plaintiff asks only for the release of his property from attachment after a claim made by him in respect of that property has been rejected, the court-fees payable are to be calculated in accordance with Seta. 2, Article 17, Cl. (1) and fixed at Rs. 10. If the ostensible owner is joined as a party to the suit and a suggestion made in the plaint that ostensible owner is in wrongful possession of the property and a prayer made for restoration thereto, the court-fee payable on that prayer being a prayer for a relief consequential to the declaration, must be calculated upon the value of the property in accordance with S. 7(4)(c) of the Act. If the plaintiff is defeated be must again pay court-fees upon the value of the property plus Rs. 10 for the declaration. But if the plaintiff is successful, the court-fee to be paid must be regulated by a consideration of the relief sought in appeal. If the attaching creditor only appeals the relief sought is against the declaration only.

2. The court-fee payable by him would be Rs. 10 only. If the ostensible owner appeals the court-fee payable would be the court-fee calculated upon the value of the property. The court-fee payable in the case before me is therefore axed at Rs. 10. The Registrar may take such steps as are warranted by the Coda for recovery of the deficit court-fee not paid by the successful plaintiff.

V.S/R.K

3. Order accordingly.