Kuppu Govinda Chettiar v. Uttukottai Co-operative Society By Its Liquidator

The question raised in this revision petition relates to the amount of the Court-fee leviable on a plaint which prays for a declaration that an order of a liquidator of a co-operative society determining the amount of contribution payable by the plaintiff under S. 42(2)(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act is null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that he ceased to be a member in or about June 1930, that more than two years after he ceased to be a member an order for contribution was made against him on the 25th November 1933, directing him to pay a large sum, namely, Rs. 8,000 and that the liquidator had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and therefore prayed for a decree that such an order is illegal, void and of no effect and unenforceable against the plaintiff. He paid a Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Art. 17-A(i)of Sch. II to the Madras Court-fees Amending Act. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff should have valued the claim under S. 7(iv-A) of the said Amending Act. This order of the learned District Judge is canvassed as being unsound by Mr. V. Ramaswami Iyer for the plaintiff. The question is, is the order of the liquidator a decree for money within the meaning of the said S. 7(iv-A) The term decree therein connotes a final order of a Court, whether civil or revenue, in a suit, and an order passed by an officer or a body which is not a Court but is invested with judicial powers in pursuance of which a liability is fixed on a person to pay a sum of money will not come wi thin its purview. The Co-operative Societies Act itself draws a distinction between an order and a decree. S. 42(5) of the Act says that orders made under the said section, when made by a liquidator, shall be enforced by any civil Court in the same manner as a decree of such Court. In construing an analogous provision, S. 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act, which provides that an award shall be enforceable as if it were a decree of Court, Viscount Cave observed thus: S. 15 does not enact that an award when filed is to be deemed a decree of the Court but only that it is to be enforceable as if it were a decree. [ Sassoon & Co. v. Ramdutt Ramkissen Das (50 Cal. 1 at p. 9 = 18 L.W. 537 (P.C.)] and refused to apply the bar of S. 47 Civil Procedure Code to a suit to have an award declared null and void.

Thus, applying the said principle, from the Co-operative Societies Act itself it is abundantly clear that the order of the liquidator under S. 42(2)(b) cannot be a decree for money within the meaning of S. 7(iv-A), not having been passed by any Court in a suit. A subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law and in case of reasonable doubt, a construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted. I am therefore of the opinion that S. 7(iv-A) would not apply to the case and that the Court-fee paid is proper. I accordingly set aside the order of the learned District Judge and allow the revision petition.

C.R.P. No. 693 of 1936 :

Following my judgment in C.R.P. No. 692 of 1936, I set aside the order of the learned District Judge and allow the revision petition.