Chinnadurai alias Ramachandran vs The Court of wards, Madras

Ramachandra Iyer, J.—These petitions are directed against the order of the District Judge of Tirunelveli, directing that the nine claimants to

the Sivagiri Estate should equally contribute to the total court-fee of Rs. 6,000 payable on the plaint in O. S. No. 3 of 1960. The Sivagiri Estate

was an impartible estate in the Tirunelveli District. The last Zamindar, Chinnathambiar, applied to the Court of Wards to take over the management

of the estate, as it was considerably indebted. The Court of Wards took management the estate. The Zamindari itself was abolished under the

Abolition Act, and the Zamindari vested in the Government on 3rd January, 1951, under S. 3 of the Abolition Act. Besides the compensation paid

for the Zamindari there were other properties, which belonged to the late Zamindar who died on 16th August 1955. The Court of Wards, which

was in possession of the estate, filed O. S. No. 26 of 1956 in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the District Court and

registered as O. S. No. 3 of 1960 for the following relief:

It is therefore prayed that this Court be pleased (a) to lake over possession of the schedule properties from the plaintiff and direct a payment of the

court-fee and ether cost incurred by the plaintiff in the first, instance, (b) to adjudicate the claims of the defendants in respect of the suit and to pass

a decree for possession accordingly, and (c) to grant Such other and further relief as may seem fit and proper to this Court.

The suit is purported to be filed under S. 28, C. P. C, as an inter-pleader suit, and a court-fee of Rs. 200 was paid under S. 50 of the Madras

Court Fees Act XIV of 1955. On a check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner, the learned District Judge held that the nine sharers should

equally contribute to the total court-fee of Rs. 6,000 payable on the plaint. This the learned District Judge did under S. 48 of the Court Fees Act.

S. 48 (2) states that, where issues are framed between the claimants, the total fee payable on the basis of the market value of the property which

formed the subject matter of the suit would be ascertained, and, after giving due credit for the initial payment made, the balance shall be divided in

equal shares between the claimants who claim the property adversely to each of them. The nine sharers do not claim equal shares in the property.

Some of them claim a 15th share, and some others, a larger share. But the learned District Judge has apportioned the court-fee payable equally

amongst them. It is this order that is sought to be revised in these petitions.

It will be apparent from a reading of the plaint, that the Suit though styled as an inter-pleader suit, is not, in substance one. The prayer which I

have extracted above shows that the Court has to take charge of the property and ascertain the shares and distribute the same in accordance with

the shares of various claimants. That would be an administration suit and not a mere inter-pleader suit. Mr. Ramanujam, who appears for the

Government Pleader, has nothing to say against this view, if so much is conceded, namely, that the suit is an administration suit, the proper section

of the Court Fees Act to apply will be S. 39. The stage at which court-fee has got to be levied will be after the shares are ascertained and before

the decree is passed. That stage has not yet been reached. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court calling upon the various

claimants to pay the court-fee now on the footing that the suit was an inter pleader suit, cannot be sustained, and it is set aside. In this view, it is

unnecessary to determine whether or not the value adopted by the lower Court in assessing the court-fee or in apportioning the same equally is

right. There will be no order as to costs.