P. Govindaswamy vs S. Sundarum Pillai and Others

V. Ramaswami, J.—This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother in App. No. 4663 of 1985 in C. S. 686 of 1985. That was an

application filed by the respondents praying for rejection of the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, (b) and (c), C.P.C., on the ground that the suit has not

been properly valued and proper court-fee paid. The suit was originally filed in the City Civil Court, as O.S. 6859 of 1984, and later transferred to

this Court and numbered as C.S. 126 of 1985. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of 16387 equity shares of Century

Flour Mills Ltd., Madras, as set out in the schedule to the plaint standing in the names of the defendants 1 to 21, directing the defendants 1 to 21 to

deposit the share certificates into court and also for a further direction to deposit the share transfer forms duly executed by them in favour of the

plaintiff and for other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff was that under a compromise executed between the plaintiff and some of the defendants, the

defendants have sold the shares for a sum of Rs. one crore and twenty lakhs and that the plaintiff has also paid a part of the consideration. The

defendants filed Appln. No. 1298 of 1985 in C.S. 126 of 1985, for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit has been undervalued.

Thereafter the plaintiff filed Appln. No. 1609 of 1985 praying for amendment of the plaint, but it was dismissed on 4.4.1985 and the plaint was

ordered to be returned. It is only subsequently, the plaint was presented in this Court and numbered as C.S. 686 of 1985, when the defendants

filed Appln. No. 4663 of 1985 praying to reject the plaint in limine on the ground that the suit had not been properly valued and proper court-fee

had not been paid. It may be mentioned that originally when the plaint was presented in the City Civil Court, the claim was value at Rs. 61,905 at

the notional value of Rs. 5 per share for 12,387 shares of the face value of Rs 100 each and paid a court fee of Rs. 6186. After the plaint was

returned in pursuance of the order, dated 4.4.1985, the plaintiff re-presented the plaint in the High Court and it was numbered as C.S. 686 of

1985. When be re-presented it, the plaintiff valued the suit at the face value of Rs. 100 per share and paid a court fee of Rs. 15,912-50 purporting

to be under S. 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. Thereafter the defendants filed the application, from out of which

the appeal arises, contending that the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under S. 24 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act,

since as per the plaintiff''s own showing the value of the shares is Rs 1,27,95,739, and the suit should be valued for that amount and court-fee paid.

This contention was accepted by the learned Judge and it was ordered that the plaintiff shall correct the valuation of the suit by valuing the reliefs

claimed at Rs. 1,20,00,000 and paying court-fee thereon under S. 24(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Two

weeks time was given for compliance with the said direction and the suit was ordered to be called on 4.2.1986. The learned counsel for the

appellant contends that since the shares have not been quoted in the market, the suit is not liable to be valued under S. 24(1)(a) and that the

payment of the court-fees on the face value is correct. The learned counsel could not rely on any particular section in the Court Fees Act, and in

particular, we may say that though in the plaint. S. 22 has been quoted, the learned counsel did not rely before us on S. 22 as well. The only

provision which we could find is only S. 24 (1) (a), since the suit related to shares which are moveable properties. Though the shares have not

been quoted, it is the plaintiff''s own case that the compromise or agreement to sell the shares of the defendant was for a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000,

and if that were so the market value could not be less than that figure, because, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he bargained for anything other

than for the shares. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judge that S. 24(1)(a) is applicable in this case and the court fee payable will be on the

basis of the suit being of the value of Rs. 1,20,00,000. There are, therefore, no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The

appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant states that the time granted by the learned Judge expires tomorrow and prayed for further time to pay the

court fee. We accordingly grant four weeks time to pay the correct court-fee from today.