Court allows State Govt to adjust dues, no court-fee for mutual account adjustment. Plaintiff's claim reduced, must pay costs.

The court ruled in favor of the State Government, allowing it to adjust the amount owed by the plaintiff against the dues claimed. The court held that the adjustment was not subject to court-fee as it was a mutual adjustment of accounts. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of exemption from the cesses, leading to a reduction in the plaintiff's entitlement and an order to pay costs to the State Government. The judgment emphasized the legal principles surrounding mutual adjustments and supported the State Government's actions in this case.

---

---

Issues:
- Recovery of dues by the State Government
- Liability to pay court-fee on adjusted amount

Analysis:

Issue 1: Recovery of dues by the State Government
The case involved an appeal against a decree passed in favor of the respondent, a former Jagirdar, against the State Government for the recovery of a specific amount. The plaintiff claimed dues totaling &8377; 24,622/-, which the State Government had collected on his behalf for excise duty and other charges. The State Government, however, contended that it had already adjusted a sum of &8377; 20,415/11/5 owed by the plaintiff towards cesses for certain years. The central question was whether the State Government was entitled to adjust this amount against the plaintiff's dues. The court examined the nature of the adjustment and clarified that it was not a claim for set off or counter-claim but a mutual adjustment of accounts, as both parties had monies due to each other. The court cited various legal precedents to support its view that court-fee was not applicable in such cases. Ultimately, the court held that the State Government was within its rights to adjust the amount due to it, and the remaining balance had been duly paid to the plaintiff.

Issue 2: Liability to pay court-fee on adjusted amount
The defendant State argued that the amount adjusted against the plaintiff's dues was for cesses owed by the plaintiff, and thus, court-fee was not applicable. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed exemption from these cesses based on historical directives and policies. The court examined the terms of the Sanad granted to the plaintiff, which specified the cesses payable and the conditions for exemption. It noted that the directives in the Durbar Policy regarding exemptions were administrative in nature and required government orders for implementation. Since the plaintiff failed to provide any such order exempting him from the cesses, the court upheld the State Government's right to adjust the amount. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, reducing the plaintiff's entitlement to &8377; 4206/13/6 and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs to the State Government in both courts.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal principles governing mutual adjustments of accounts and upheld the State Government's right to adjust the plaintiff's dues. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the historical context, legal provisions, and administrative directives relevant to the case.

---