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

1951 Supreme(Ker) 36

Judges : SANKARAN,GANGADHARA MENON
Warasayar - Appellant
Versus
Kunhen Warrier - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 111 of 1124
Decided On : 03/21/1951
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: V. Sankara Menon, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Achutha Menon, Advocate.

Proper valuation and payment of court fee on appeal memorandum is essential for the admissibility of an appeal.

Headnote:

Court Fee - Appeal Memorandum - Proper valuation and payment of court fee - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs sought declaration of termination of agency agreement and recovery of possession of properties from defendants. Trial court granted decree in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants appealed, but lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground of improper court fee payment.

Finding of the Court:

Lower appellate court dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of improper court fee payment, without considering the merits of the case.

Issues: Proper valuation and payment of court fee on the appeal memorandum.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellants were bound to pay court fee on the market value of the properties as valued in the plaint. The lower appellate court should have allowed a reasonable time for the appellants to pay the deficit court fee due on the appeal memorandum.

Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, and the case is remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal after allowing the appellants a reasonable time to pay up the deficit court fee found to be due on the appeal memorandum.

Judgment :-

Defendants 1 to 3 and 8 in O.S. No. 335/1119 of the file of the Trichur District Munsiff's Court are the appellants. The 8th defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant, and defendants 2 and 7 are their children. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, who had been appointed as their agent under Ext. B agreement dated 20.11.1109 for the management of the plaint properties and also for the performance of the duties specified in the agreement had violated the terms of the agreement and had acted in excess of the powers conferred by the terms of the agreement and had also acted against the interests of the plaintiffs and accordingly the agency created by Ext. B was terminated by the plaintiffs by the issue of the registered notice to the first defendant. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the agency created under Ext. B agreement has been duly terminated or in the alternative for a cancellation of the agreement, for the reasons already stated. It is also prayed that the suit properties may be allowed to be recovered by the plaintiffs from the defendants with future mesne profits at the rate of 40 paras of paddy per year. The suit properties were valued at Rs. 1660 and on that basis a court fee of Rs. 94 was paid by the plaintiffs. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that Ext. B agreement is not a mere contract of agency but is a permanent arrangement under which a right was created in favour of the defendants over the plaint properties and that even otherwise the agency created under Ext. B was coupled with an interest in

favour of the agent and as such the agency cannot be terminated by any unilateral act on the part of the plaintiffs. It was also contended that the defendants had become joint owners of the plaint properties along with the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the properties from the defendants. The defendants also put forward a claim for the value of the improvements effected by them in the properties in case it is found that they are liable to surrender possession of the properties. The trial court repelled all these contentions and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants. It was declared that Ext. B agreement was validly terminated as per the registered notice issued to the defendants by the plaintiffs on 2.3.1119. Against that decree defendants 1 and 3 to 8 preferred an appeal to the Trichur District Court as A.S. No. 33 of 1123. The two main reliefs claimed by them in that appeal were for a declaration that Ext. B agreement was not liable to be cancelled as a mere contract of agency and also for a declaration that the defendants, who have become joint owners of the plaint properties with the plaintiffs, are not liable to be evicted from the properties. The first of these reliefs was valued at Rs. 100 and the second relief was valued at Rs. 200. On each of these counts the appellants paid a court fee of Rs. 10/-, the total amount of court fees thus paid being only Rs. 20. By the several grounds raised in the appeal memorandum they had questioned the correctness of the trial court's finding on the several issues raised in the case. There was also a general prayer in the appeal memorandum that the trial court's decree may be set aside and the plaintiffs' suit may be dismissed.

2. When A.S. No. 33 of 1123 came on for hearing before the lower appellate court, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the appellants had not paid proper court fee on the appeal memorandum and as such the appeal was unsustainable. In answer to this objection the appellants maintained that the court fee paid on the basis of the reliefs as valued in the appeal memorandum was sufficient. This contention was overruled by the lower appellate court and it was held that the appellants were bound to pay the court fee as per the plaint valuation. On behalf of the appellants req








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