Abeda Begum and ors. Vs. Rajput Anasuya - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - , are clearly legible.orderc.y. somayajulu, j.1. the defendants in o.s. no. 166 of 1999 on the file of the additional chief judge-cum-family court, secunderabad are the appellants in this appeal.2. respondent filed the suit on 9-12-1999 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18-10-1998 executed in her favour or in the alternative for refund of rs. 1,50,000/- and damages of rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization. after contest by the appellants the trial court passed a decree in favour of the respondent directing the applicants to pay rs. 1,50,000/- with costs, together with interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization.3. aggrieved by that decree defendants preferred this appeal and paid court fee of rs. 3,426/- against the granting of a decree for rs. 1,00,000/-against them. registry took objection that the court fee paid is not correct and that appellants have to calculate interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization on that amount also as per the decree and pay court fee on that amount also. since the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court fee paid is sufficient, the case is listed for orders relating to the deficiency of the court fee paid.4. the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as explanation iii to section 49 of the andhra pradesh court fee and suits valuation act (for short the act) contemplates court fee being paid only on the interest pendente lite, but not from the date of cause of action, appellants need not pay court fee on the interest from the date of the agreement i.e., 18-10-1998 as sought by the registry and relied on state of maharashtra v. mishri tarachand lodha and ors. : [1964]5scr230 and dasari venkatachalam (died) v. kanchupatla appa rao 1965 (2) alt 199 in support of his contention.5. the primary relief sought in the suit is specific performance of agreement dated 18-10-1998 and the alternative relief prayed of the plaint is:(c) if for any reason the court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- being reimbursement of the advance consideration of rupees one lakh originally paid along with requisite damages of rs. 50,000-00 with interest from 18-10-1998 till realization @ 24% per annum.in view there of the alternative relief claimed by the respondent is 'refund of rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 till realization.' it must be stated that the trial court, before registering the suit, should have directed the plaintiff to value the alternative relief also and show the court fees payable thereon, because as per the proviso to section 6(3)(a) of the act, in case the plaintiff seeks alternative reliefs against the same person(s) on the same cause of action, court fee has to be collected on the higher of the reliefs claimed. obviously because the primary relief claimed is higher in value, the court fee paid by the plaintiff thereon, the suit was registered. the value of the alternative relief claimed in the suit is rs. 1,50,000/- and interest at 24% per annum thereon from 18-10-1998 till the date of suit i.e., 9-12-1999, would be less than rs. 2,00,000/-. appellants are aggrieved by the trial court passing a decree for rs. 1,00,000/- with interest against them and admit their liability to pay rs. 50,000/- because ground no. 24 of the grounds of appeal reads:24. the trial court ought to have dismissed the suit completely and decreed that the plaintiff shall get from the defendants rs. 50,000/- only out of the advance amount of rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% thereon for one month and odd in view of ex.bl and ex.a19 reply notice on behalf of defendants dated 1-10-1999 and that the defendants are entitled to forfeit the other rs. 50,000/- out of the advanced sum.explanation (4) to section 49 of the act reads:where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed for or refused in the court of first instance, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal.since appellants (defendants) are aggrieved by the trial court passing a decree for rs. 1,50,000/- with interest instead of rs. 50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum thereon for one month from the date of agreement, the appeal has to be valued as per the explanation 4 to section 49 of the act. explanation 3 to section 49 of the act has no application to the facts of this case.6. the ratio in mishri tarachand lodha's case (supra), is that value of the appeal has to be determined on the substantial allegations in the plaint or from the pleas in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the point of dispute between the parties said to be determined by the court. as stated above, the point for consideration in this appeal would be whether the trial court was right in granting a decree for rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization and in not passing a decree only for rs. 50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum for one month, as contended by the appellants. so the point in dispute in appeal relates to the trial court granting decree for rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 and not awarding interest only for one month at 24% on rs. 50,000/-from 18-10-1998 i.e., up to 18-11-1998 only. keeping in view explanation 3 to section 49 of the act, appellants have to value the appeal at rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 till the date of decree i.e., 31-8-2006 and interest at 24% on rs. 50,000/-from 18-11-1998 to 31-8-2006 and pay court fee on that amount.7. in dasari venkatachalam's case (supra), the point for consideration was whether interest on the principal amount as per explanation 3 to section 49 of the act has to be calculated till the date of filing of the appeal or till the date of decree only. it was held that interest has to be calculated only till the date of decree, but not till the date of appeal.8. for the reasons mentioned above, the value of the appeal would be rs. 1,00,000/-with interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till the date of decree and interest on rs. 50,000/- from 18-11-1998 to 31-8-2006. the appeal has to be valued accordingly. appellants are granted one week time for payment of deficit court fee.9. learned counsel for the appellants contends that it would take sometime for furnishing neat copies of judgment and decree, because the certified copies furnished by the trial court are xerox copies and are not properly legible. i have seen the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. they are xerox copies, and are not legible and some of the words or sentences are missing. copyist establishments in the trial court should take care to see that xerox copies of judgments and decrees or orders and decretal orders furnished to the parties, for filing of appeal or revision etc., are clearly legible. if words or sentences are missing in the xerox copies they should be filled in supplied by the copyist establishment and properly certified. if the xerox machines not working properly they should be got repaired. the copyist department cannot wash of to its hands by furnishing illegible and unreadable copies of judgments, orders etc. registrar (judicial) is requested to bring this fact to the notice of my lord the chief justice for issue of suitable instructions to all the subordinate courts, because in many cases certified copies furnished are illegible and or unreadable. appellants are granted 15 days time for filing neat copy of judgment and decree of the trial court. register the appeal, if otherwise in order, on payment of deficit court fee.

Judgment:
ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 166 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Family Court, Secunderabad are the appellants in this appeal.

2. Respondent filed the suit on 9-12-1999 for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 18-10-1998 executed in her favour or in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- and damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization. After contest by the appellants the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent directing the applicants to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- with costs, together with interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization.

3. Aggrieved by that decree defendants preferred this appeal and paid Court fee of Rs. 3,426/- against the granting of a decree for Rs. 1,00,000/-against them. Registry took objection that the Court fee paid is not correct and that appellants have to calculate interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till realization on that amount also as per the decree and pay Court fee on that amount also. Since the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Court fee paid is sufficient, the case is listed for orders relating to the deficiency of the Court fee paid.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as Explanation III to Section 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (for short the Act) contemplates Court fee being paid only on the interest pendente lite, but not from the date of cause of action, appellants need not pay Court fee on the interest from the date of the agreement i.e., 18-10-1998 as sought by the Registry and relied on State of Maharashtra v. Mishri Tarachand Lodha and Ors. : [1964]5SCR230 and Dasari Venkatachalam (died) v. Kanchupatla Appa Rao 1965 (2) ALT 199 in support of his contention.

5. The primary relief sought in the suit is specific performance of agreement dated 18-10-1998 and the alternative relief prayed of the plaint is:

(c) If for any reason the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- being reimbursement of the advance consideration of rupees one lakh originally paid along with requisite damages of Rs. 50,000-00 with interest from 18-10-1998 till realization @ 24% per annum.

In view there of the alternative relief claimed by the respondent is 'refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 till realization.' It must be stated that the trial Court, before registering the suit, should have directed the plaintiff to value the alternative relief also and show the Court fees payable thereon, because as per the proviso to Section 6(3)(a) of the Act, in case the plaintiff seeks alternative reliefs against the same person(s) on the same cause of action, Court fee has to be collected on the higher of the reliefs claimed. Obviously because the primary relief claimed is higher in value, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff thereon, the suit was registered. The value of the alternative relief claimed in the suit is Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest at 24% per annum thereon from 18-10-1998 till the date of suit i.e., 9-12-1999, would be less than Rs. 2,00,000/-. Appellants are aggrieved by the trial Court passing a decree for Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest against them and admit their liability to pay Rs. 50,000/- because Ground No. 24 of the grounds of appeal reads:

24. The Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit completely and decreed that the plaintiff shall get from the defendants Rs. 50,000/- only out of the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% thereon for one month and odd in view of Ex.Bl and Ex.A19 reply notice on behalf of defendants dated 1-10-1999 and that the defendants are entitled to forfeit the other Rs. 50,000/- out of the advanced sum.

Explanation (4) to Section 49 of the Act reads:

where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed for or refused in the Court of first instance, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal.

Since appellants (defendants) are aggrieved by the trial Court passing a decree for Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest instead of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum thereon for one month from the date of agreement, the appeal has to be valued as per the Explanation 4 to Section 49 of the Act. Explanation 3 to Section 49 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case.

6. The ratio in Mishri Tarachand Lodha's case (supra), is that value of the appeal has to be determined on the substantial allegations in the plaint or from the pleas in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the point of dispute between the parties said to be determined by the Court. As stated above, the point for consideration in this appeal would be whether the trial Court was right in granting a decree for Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization and in not passing a decree only for Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum for one month, as contended by the appellants. So the point in dispute in appeal relates to the trial Court granting decree for Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 and not awarding interest only for one month at 24% on Rs. 50,000/-from 18-10-1998 i.e., up to 18-11-1998 only. Keeping in view Explanation 3 to Section 49 of the Act, appellants have to value the appeal at Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 till the date of decree i.e., 31-8-2006 and interest at 24% on Rs. 50,000/-from 18-11-1998 to 31-8-2006 and pay Court fee on that amount.

7. In Dasari Venkatachalam's case (supra), the point for consideration was whether interest on the principal amount as per Explanation 3 to Section 49 of the Act has to be calculated till the date of filing of the appeal or till the date of decree only. It was held that interest has to be calculated only till the date of decree, but not till the date of appeal.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the value of the appeal would be Rs. 1,00,000/-with interest at 24% per annum from 18-10-1998 till the date of decree and interest on Rs. 50,000/- from 18-11-1998 to 31-8-2006. The appeal has to be valued accordingly. Appellants are granted one week time for payment of deficit Court fee.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that it would take sometime for furnishing neat copies of judgment and decree, because the certified copies furnished by the trial Court are Xerox copies and are not properly legible. I have seen the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. They are Xerox copies, and are not legible and some of the words or sentences are missing. Copyist establishments in the trial Court should take care to see that Xerox copies of judgments and decrees or orders and decretal orders furnished to the parties, for filing of appeal or revision etc., are clearly legible. If words or sentences are missing in the Xerox copies they should be filled in supplied by the copyist establishment and properly certified. If the Xerox machines not working properly they should be got repaired. The copyist department cannot wash of to its hands by furnishing illegible and unreadable copies of judgments, orders etc. Registrar (Judicial) is requested to bring this fact to the notice of My Lord the Chief Justice for issue of suitable instructions to all the subordinate Courts, because in many cases certified copies furnished are illegible and or unreadable. Appellants are granted 15 days time for filing neat copy of judgment and decree of the trial Court. Register the appeal, if otherwise in order, on payment of deficit Court fee.