The State of Mysore Vs. Santoomal Kishnomal

..... - payment of court fee of rs.200/-on the plaint under section 35(2) dismissal of suit appealed against - payment of court fee of rs.200/- in the appeal office objection specific finding by the trial court as to ouster of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property whether plaintiff is liable to pay court fee under section 35(1) or under section 35(2) of the karnataka court fees & suits valuation act, 1958 held, merely because the trial court has held that plaintiff is not in possession and has been excluded from possession there will be no change in the court fee payable in the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decree passed by the trial court . the court fee payable on appeal is the same as the court fee paid on the plaint in the court of first instance i.e., in terms of section 49 of the k.c.f. &s.v. act, 1958. office objection is unsustainable. -- karnataka court fees & suits valuation act, 1958.[k.a. no. 16/1958]. section 41: regular first appeal court fee in appeal - suit for partition and separate possession - payment of court fee of rs.200/-on the plaint under section 35(2) dismissal of suit appealed against - payment of court fee of rs.200/- in the appeal office objection specific finding by the trial court as to ouster of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property whether plaintiff is liable to pay court fee under section 35(1) or under section 35(2) of the karnataka court fees & suits valuation act, 1958 held, merely because the trial court has held that plaintiff is not in possession and has been excluded from possession there will be no change in the court fee payable in the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decree passed by the trial court . the court fee payable on appeal is the same as the court fee paid on the plaint in the court of first instance i.e., in terms of section 49 of the k.c.f. &s.v. act, 1958. office objection is unsustainable.order1. the only point that comes up for consideration in this case is whether a 'crow-bar' is an 'agricultural implement' exempted from sales tax under schedule iii of the mysore sales tax act, 1948. the sales tax appellate tribunal has opined that it is an agricultural implement. there is no denying of the fact that the crow-bar is used as an agricultural implement. but, what the learned government pleader contends is that it is mainly used as an instrument for purposes other than agricultural purposes and therefore it should not be considered as an 'agricultural implement'. 'agricultural implement' has not been defined in the mysore sales tax act, 1948, nor in the rules framed thereunder. therefore, we have to take ordinary meaning of the words 'agricultural implement' into consideration. it is not denied that a 'crow-bar' is generally used as an agricultural implement. the question whether it is predominantly used as such an instrument to our mind appears to be an irrelevant question. the use of the 'crow-bar' for agricultural purposes is by no means a remote use. we are also in agreement with the contention of mr. gulur srinivasarao, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the crow-bar is extensively used as an agricultural implement. that being so, we are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the mysore sales tax appellate tribunal that 'crow-bar' is an 'agricultural implement'. 2. in the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. the petitioner shall pay the costs of the respondent. advocate's fee rs. 100. 3. petition dismissed.