AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On an objection taken by the Office how a revision petition u/s 115 CPC is maintainable while claiming relief u/s 141 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions Act, the matter is posted before the Court.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court framed the issue to be decided as follows:
"In a suit filed by a Temple for recovery of rents whether an ad valorem Court fee on the plaint has to be paid or a fixed Court fee of Rs.100/- has to be paid as per Schedule 3 read with Section 141 of the Act?"
The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the petitioner-Temple filed a suit against the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.61,375/- being the amount towards the arrears of rent payable on the petition schedule lands taken on lease by him and costs of the suit and instead of paying ad valorem Court fee as contemplated u/s 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1956, hereinafter called as Court Fees Act, the petitioner paid only Rs. 100/- under the guise of Schedule 3 read with Section 141 of the Act. The District Munsif having heard the matter directed the petitioner to comply with the objection raised by the office. In other words to pay ad valorem Court fee on the plaint to get the plaint numbered.
Questioning that docket order, the present revision petition is field and again when the registry has taken the objection about the maintainability of a revision petition u/s 115 CPC as the petitioner is claiming relief u/s 141 of the Court Fees Act, the matter is posted before the Court at the instance of the petitioner. It is useful to extract Section 141 of the Act :
"Without prejudice to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the proper fees chargeable in respect of the documents prescribed in column (2) of the Third Schedule shall be the fees indicated in Column (3) thereof"
The 3rd Schedule incorporated u/s 141 of the Act specifics the Court fee payable for documents. Serial No.6 deals with suit filed in any Court, the Court fee payable thereon was shown as Rs.100/-. On the basis of this entry the petitioner paid Rs. 100/- as Court fee on the plaint. Firstly a reading of Section 141 of the Act clearly indicates that the matters covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 are saved from the provisions of this Act. In other words while the Court fee has to be paid on the matters governed by the Court Fees Act and the matters that arise for consideration under this Act, the Court fee is payable as shown in Schedule 3. Hence there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that as the Temple is the plaintiff, it can take shelter u/s 141 read with Schedule 3 of the Act. Infact the provisions of the Court Fees Act cannot be attacked either on the ground of legislative incompetency or repugnancy under Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India, while the Parliament is having exclusive power to make laws on any of the matters enumerated in List-I of the 7th Schedule under sub-clause (2) empowers both Parliament and the Legislature of any State to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 3 in the 7th Schedule which is popularly known as Concurrent List. In other words as far as the matters enumerated in List 3, both the Parliament and the State Legislature are having power to make laws. Under sub-clause (3) the State Legislature is having exclusive power to make laws in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List ''2'' of the 7th Schedule. If both the Parliament and the State Legislature make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List ''3'' under Article 254, any law made by the State Legislature to the extent of its inconsistency with the law made by the Parliament shall be repugnant to the law made by the Parliament and to that extent the law made by the State shall be declared as void. -Keeping these principles in law we have to look at these two Acts. Entry 3 in List 2 of Schedule 7 deals with the Officers and Servants of the High Court and is hereunder:
"Officers and Senates of the High Court;
Procedure in rent and revenue Courts; fees taken in all Courts except the Supreme Court".
In exercise of the powers conferred under this entry, the State Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees Act and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. Chapter 3 of the Court Fees Act deals with determination of the fee payable. As per the statement of particulars of the subject-matter of a suit filed by the plaintiff, in every suit in which the fee payable under the Act on the plaint depends on the market value of the subject-matter of the suit and the plaintiff has to file along with the plaint a statement in the prescribed form, all the particulars of the subject-matter of the suit and valuation thereof. Chapter 4 deals with computation of Court fee payable on various documents including the suit governed by the provisions of the Act and they shall be in accordance with Chapters ''6'' and ''7'' and Schedules 1 and 2. Section 20 deals with suits for money and in a suit for money the Court fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. Under Table-I, for the suits mentioned under Article-I of Schedule-I the fee payable on plaint shall be ad valorem Court fee. As far as the Endowments Act is concerned, the same was enacted in exercise of the Legislative power under Entry 28 of the Concurrent List. It is as hereunder:
"Charges and Charitable Institutions, Charitable and Religious Endowments and Religious Institutions".
From the above it is seen that the State Legislature is having the Legislative competence to enact the above laws in exercise of the Legislative Powers under the entries referred to supra. As there is no law made by the Parliament, the question of repugnancy does not arise. In other words both the laws can co-exist and they will operate in their respective fields. To be more clear, for the suits to be filed by the Temples in a Civil Court, more so of this nature i.e., recovery of monies, they have to pay only ad valorem Court fees as recovery of monies due to the Temple. The Temple does not come under any of the provisions of the Endowments Act. The entire gamut of the controversy was summarised by a Division Bench of this Court way back in 1957 in BH. Satyamrayanamirthi v, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, 1957 ALT 403. The then Chief Justice Sri K. Subbarao, speaking for the Bench on the issue whether the Court fee of Rs.100/-has to be paid on a writ petition as per the rules made by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India or only Rs.2/- as prescribed in the Endowments Act that was in force at that point, of time observed that :
"The provisions of this Act, so the argument proceeds, is subject to the law relating to the levy of fee made by the High Court and, therefore, the latter over-rides the former. But the necessary condition for the applicability of sub-section (2) is that the same law should have prescribed the proceedings and also the Court-fee payable thereon. This objection is met by the contention that an application for the issue of a writ is under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the fee is fixed by the rule made in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution and that, therefore, both the proceedings and the law relating to Court-fee are prescribed by the same law. Under sub-section (2) the law relating to the levy of fee should be in respect of proceedings under such law, i.e., the same law under which the fee is levied. This provision is obviously intended to save the proceedings under a statute which itself prescribes the Court-fee on the said proceedings. To illustrate: The Religious Endowments Act prescribes the Court-fee payable on the proceedings, taken under that Act. In the instant case though the power to make rules prescribing the Court fees is derived by the High Court from Article 225 of the Constitution, the Court fee is not payable under the Constitution. Assuming for a moment that the word "law" in subsection (2) includes the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, that law, namely, the Constitution does not provide both for a proceeding and also for the fee payable on that proceeding sub-section (2) does not, therefore, save the rule made by the High Court.''''
In the light of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it has to fell to ground. The contention raised by the petitioner is answered accordingly and if the petitioner wants to continue the proceedings, it has to pay the Court fee as contemplated under the Court Fees Act.
With the above directions, the revision petition is dismissed.