Patna High Court
Kali Prasad Singh vs Mathura Prasad Singh on 30 October, 1922
Equivalent citations: 77IND. CAS.1054, AIR 1923 PATNA 28
JUDGMENT Jwala Prasad, J.
1. This is a reference to me as Taxing Judge. The plaintiffs' suit for recovery of a debt due under a mortgage was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court and have valued their appeal at the same amount (Rs. 8,072-10-6) as the plaint. The question referred to me is as to whether the Court-fee paid by the appellants on the aforesaid valuation is sufficient, or, whether, it is incumbent upon them to pay Court-fee-upon the interest; calculated at the bond rate from the date of the suit to the date of the presentation of their appeal to this Court.
2. There is a great conflict of opinion oh this point. The learned Vakil on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the following cases: Vithal Hari Athavle v. Govind Vasudeo 17 B. 41 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 27, Ram Bujhawan Prasad Singh v. Natho Ram 70 Ind. Cas. 483 : 3 P.L.T. 146 : (1922) A.I.R.(Pat.) 59, Bhagwati Prasad Singh v. Bishun Pragash Narain 70 Ind. Cas. 953 : 3 P.L.T. 310 : 6 P.L.J. 670 : (1922) Pat. 73 : (1922) A.I.R. (Pa) 386, and Bhawani Prasad v. Kutub-un-nissa Bibi 27 A. 559 : 2 A.L.J. 263 : A.W.N. (1905) 84. The contrary view was taken by the late Taxing Judge, Mr. Justice Coutts, in the case of Mahanth Janki Saran Das v. Harbans Deo, Unreported S.A. No, 489 of 1920. His view is supported by the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh in Gobardhan Das v. Narendra Bahadur Singh 50 Ind. Cas. 798 : 22 O.C.I. : U.P.L.R.(O) 29. The Madras Court decision in the case of Srinivasa Row v. Ramaswami Chetti 10 M.L.J. 144, favours the contention of the appellants. No decision of the Calcutta High Court exactly applicable to the case has been placed before me. The view taken in Percival v. Collector of Chittagong 30 C. 516, seems to be that an Appellate Court cannot pass a decree for a larger amount than that claimed in the memorandum of appeal, unless, before the judgment is pronounced', an amendment) of the memorandum of appeal is allowed and the addtional Court-fee is paid in.
3. On a consideration of all these cases it appears to me that when a suit Is dismissed the plaintiff is entitled to value his appeal at the sum claimed in the plaint in respect of the principal and interest up to the date of tiling the plaint and is not bound to value the future interest which he may claim from the date of the suit up to the date of realization, or to pay any Court-fee thereon. But if any future interest is determined by the Trial Court and is entered in the decree then the plaintiff, on appeal by the defendant, is bound to pay additional Court-fee on the sum of interest so added in the decree as having accrued from the date of the suit up to the date of the preparation of the decree in the lower Court. Now if the plaintiff, filing an appeal on the valuation stated by him in the Court below, obtains a decree in this Court for a higher sum than that actually claimed by him in the Court below, he is bound to pay Court-fee on such additional sum and when future interest is added in the decree of this Appelate Court he would not be able to execute his decree unless he pays Court-fee on future interest. This view seems to be in accordance with that expressed in Jamuna Rai v. Ramtahal Raut 77 Ind. Cas. 1039 : 3 P.L.T. 790 : (1922) A.I.R. (Pat.) 387 : 1 Pat. 191,as well as in agreement with the views of the Bombay, Madras and Allahabad High Courts. The decision of a Division Bench Of this Court, dated the 25th July 1922 in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Singh v. Bishun Pragash Narain 70 Ind. Cas. 953 : 3 P.L.T. 310 : 6 P.L.J. 670 : (1922) Pat. 73 : (1922) A.I.R. (Pa) 386, virtually overrides the view taken by the late Taxing Judge in the earlier case of Mahanth Janki Saran Dus v. Harbans Deo, unreported S.A. No. 489 of 1920;
4. I, therefore, direct that the valuation given by the appellants be accepted as sufficient.