Byrappa vs Mysore Paper Mills Limited on 27 July, 1999
9. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff deleted the prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the accrued/deposited amount of Rs. 2,15,350/-. Prayer was made for recovery of the amount. From the averment made in the plaint as well as the prayer column it is established that it was a simple money suit on which ad valorem Court fee has to be paid. It cannot be considered to be a declaratory suit. The Trial Court has not erred in holding that the Court fee is not payable in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and it is insufficient. The Court fee is required to be paid under Section 21 of the Act. There is no jurisdictional error or illegality committed. The judgment given in the case of B. Subba Rao, supra, is not applicable because it was observed in that case that,
".... The plaintiff has not applied for a direction to pay the money and the prayer if granted does not entitle him to enforce the realisation of the amount in execution of the decree which may be passed. The officer who has control over the fund and competent to pay it is not a party to the suit. The adjudication of the right to it in plaintiffs favour may suffice for the plaintiff getting the amount. The officer in charge of the money is not interested in the person to whom payment is to be made whether he is the plaintiff or any other and all that he wants is a judicial recognition of the claim. The person who disputes the claim is the defendant and since the money is not with him it does not seem to be necessary or reasonable to call upon the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount in deposit. That contingency may arise if the custodian declines to pay it and the plaintiff wants to enforce his claim for payment".