AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesam, J.—I do not agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and the court-fee examiner. This suit is for a declaration that the
person re-ally interested in the promissory notes is the plaintiff and not the defendant though they stand in the defendant''s name and for recovery of
the notes but not for the recovery of the money due [on the notes. The makers of the notes are parties so that the finding may be binding on them
also. Section 7, Clause 4 (a), Court-fees Act, is the clause applicable and not Clause 3 as the Subordinate -Judge seems to think.
u/s 7, Clause 4(a), Court-fees Act, the plaintiff has not got to pay court-fees on the value of the notes. The value of the notes is not the money
due on the notes. Their value is only evidentiary. The plaintiff has got to state the value at which he values the relief sought. He has stated it to be
Rs. 500. I set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and find that the plaintiff has not to pay additional court-fees. I do not see that I should
make the respondent liable for the costs. I am not able to see that I can make any other person liable for costs. There will be no order as to costs
(in this petition).