Case: State Of Maharashtra Vs. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha Andothers

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted Special Suit No. 5 of 1957 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ahmednagar to recover Rs. 13,205/- on account of the principal lent to defendant No. 7, and interest up to the date of the suit at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. On July 18, 1960, his claim was decreed in a sum of Rs. 13,033-6-6 with future interest from the date of suit till realisation at 4 per cent per annum on a sum of Rs. 10, 120/-.3. Defendant No. 7 appealed to the High Court against the decree. In the memorandum of appeal, defendant No. 7 valued the claim for purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs. 13,033/6/6 and his grounds Nos. 1 and 48 of appeal were asThat the lower Court erred in decreeing the plaintiffs suit.48. That the decree is otherwise erroneous, unjust and illegal and therefore deserves to be setremaining 46 grounds related to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and did not deal with the correctness of the trial Court awarding future pendente lite interest at the rate at which it was to be calculated.4. The Taxing Officer was of opinion that the appeal was against the whole decree and that the amount of value of the subject matter in dispute for purposes of court-fee was Rs 14,036.80 nP as the amount of interest from the date of the suit till the date of the decree on Rs. 10,120/- came to Rs. 1,033.40 nP and it had been conceded by the counsel for the defendant-appellant that the subject matter of the appeal was the decree passed by the trial Court. He therefore directed the defendant-appellant to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 70/- on the memorandum of appeal and to amend the claim accordingly.5. The defendant-appellant then filed a revision to the High Court under S. 5(2) of the Act. His objection was upheld by the learned Judge who expressed thesubject matter in appeal is the real matter in dispute between the parties and not something which must stand or fall with the decision on it. In other words, it must mean the right which is in dispute between theaccordingly set aside the order of the Taxing Officer and held that the amount of court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was the proper court-fee. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal by special leave against this order.

Reasoning:
9. We do not consider it correct that the expression in the Act be construed in the light of the construction placed on a similar expression for the purposes of considering whether the case had come within the rule allowing the High Courts to give leave for appeal to the Privy Council. The Act is a taxing statute and its provisions therefore have to be construed strictly, in favour of the subject-litigant. The other provisions are for the purpose of allowing the party feeling aggrieved against the decision of the High Court to take up his case to the next higher Court, the Privy Council and therefore the relevant provisions in that regard had to be given a liberal construction.The amount of court-fee payable, therefore, depends on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal. The defendant-appellant valued his claim at Rs. 13,033-6-6 and paid the requisite court-fee on that amount. It is obvious therefore that he disputes in appeal that part of the decree which awarded Rs. 13,033-6-6 against him on account of principal and interest due up to the date of the institution of the suit. He did not dispute, according to the value of his claim, the amount of interest which could be found on calculation for the period between the date of the suit and the date of the decree at 4 per cent per annum on a sum of Rs. 10,120/- as had been awarded under the decree. Whether his appeal is competent or not without his including this amount in his claim in appeal, is a question different from that relating to the value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal. He does not dispute the decree for that amount and therefore the Court has not to decide about it and so this amount cannot be included in the amount of the subject matter in dispute in appeal covered by the relevant expression. None of his grounds of appeal refers specifically to this amount of interest between the date of the suit and the date of the decree. This makes it further plain that he does not question the propriety of awarding of future interest or the rate at which it was awarded or even the amount on which it could be awarded. It is not possible to say, in these circumstances, that the value of the subject matter in dispute in the appeal must include this amount of interest between the date of the suit and the date of the decree.13. Mr. Gupte has rightly conceded that it is well-settled that the plaintiff has to value his appeal against the dismissal of his suit on the amount of the claim he had made in the plaint and has not to include the interest due on the amount claimed up to the date of instituting the appeal, that the defendant has not to include that amount of future interest subsequent to the date of the decree till the institution of the appeal in the valuation of the appeal for the purposes of court-fee and that no court-fee is to be paid on the amount of costs decreed in the suit when the party aggrieved appeals against thereason really is that it is the value of the right claimed in the suit or appeal which is covered by the expression amount or value of subject matter in dispute in Art. 1, Schedule I, of the Act and that the plaintiff has no right to get any of these amounts from the defendant though the Court may, in its discretion, allow future interest and costs according to the circumstances of the suit in view of Ss. 34 and 35 C.P.C. This principle equally applies to the non-inclusion of the decreed amounts of pendente lite interest in evaluating the subject matter in dispute in appeal as that too is awarded in the exercise of its discretion by the Court and the plaintiff has no right or claim for that amount against thedefendant appellate has therefore no reason to appeal against the decree for costs or the decree for future interest unless he disputes those amounts wholly or partially for certain reasons. If he disputes expressly the propriety or correctness of the decree with respect to the costs or pendente lite interest independently of the claim to the subject matter in the Trial Court he will have to pay court- fee on the amounts challenged as in that case he does dispute those amounts in appeal and therefore those amounts do come within the expression value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal. This has been the basis of the various decisions of the Courts in which court-fee has been demanded on the amounts of costs or future interest.