SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(AP) 41

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR
V.Narasimha Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Minor Prabhakar Reddy, by next friend Saman Changa Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 02-16-66

Interpretation of the proviso to section 49 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956

Headnote:

Court-fees - Appeal against Final Decree - Interpretation of Proviso to Section 49 of Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal against a final decree in a mortgage suit, claiming credit for the court-fee already paid in a pending appeal against the preliminary decree.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proviso to section 49 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 should be interpreted to give credit for the fee paid in the appeal against the preliminary decree.

Issues: Interpretation of the proviso to section 49 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wording of the statute was clear and should not be interpreted in a way that denies a person the rights within the proviso.

Final Decision: The court decided to give credit for the court-fee paid in the appeal against the preliminary decree in the present appeal against the final decree.

( 1 ). THE appellant has filed an appeal (A. S. No. 489 of 1964) against a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit in O. S. No. 23 of 1963. That appeal is pending on the file of this Court. Subsequently, a final decree was passed for sale of the mortgaged properties in the same suit. Against that final decree, the appeal- lant has filed the present appeal. The appellant claims that, in computing Court-fees in the present appeal the court-fee which he has alreadypaid in A. S. No. 489 of 1964 should be taken, into account. He claims the benefit of the proviso to section 49 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The case comes directly under the provisions of the proviso to section 49 which runs as follows :-" Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the Court of first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree. "all the requirements of the proviso are strictly complied with in this case. Therefore the case will come within the four corners of the proviso. The Office has referred to the decisions of the Madras High Court in Upputhayammal in re, (1932) 62 M. L. J. 624: I. L. R. 55 Mad. 664. and kothandaraman v. The Collector of Chingleput, (1952) 2 M. LJ. 852:1. L. R. (1953) Mad. 826. Those decisions were made on a consideration of the law ?. s it stood then and not of the provisions of the andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1956. The latter Act is a fiscal enactment.

( 2 ) THE interpretation cannot be done in such a way as to deny to a person the lights which he gets by directly coming within the four corners of the proviso to section 49 of the Act. The wording of this statute i. e. , the proviso to section 49 is clear. I, therefore, find that, in the present appeal, credit has to be given to the Court- fee paid already in the appeal preferred against the preliminary decree (A. S. No. 489 of 1964 ). Government Pleader s fee is fixed at Rs. 50.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top