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

1966 Supreme(Ker) 225

P.T.RAMAN NAYAR
MAHALINGA BHATTA – Appellant
Versus
VENKITARAMANA BHATT – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This second appeal is in a suit instituted in the Malabar area in 1948. Therefore, by reason of S.87(2) of Madras Act XIV of 1955 and S.87(2) of Kerala Act 10 of 1960, the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal is governed by the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as in force in Madras in 1948. The suit is for partition, but the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal is capable of being valued in terms of money and has, indeed, been valued at Rs. 50,000 and odd in the memorandum of appeal. The question is whether the court-fee payable is an ad valerom fee under Art.1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Madras, or a fixed fee under Art.17-B of Schedule II.

2. The first column of Art.1 of Schedule I runs as follows: "Plaint or written statement pleading a set off or counter-claim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in this Act) presented to any Civil or Revenue Court"

And the second column clearly shows that the article can apply only in cases where the subject-matter in dispute can be valued in money.

Article 17-B of Schedule II runs thus:

"Plaint or memorandum of appeal in every suit where it is not possible to estimate at











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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top