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

2011 Supreme(Ker) 1031

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Sreekumara Samajam – Appellant
Versus
Thilakan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :K.G. Balasubramanian, Advocate.

ORDER :

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

No Court Fee is paid on this appeal by the plaintiff. We, therefore, heard his learned counsel on the question of court fee.

2. Defendant subscribed a chit. He bid that. On the allegation that he defaulted the subsequent instalments, the plaintiff, who is the chitty foreman, sued fora personal decree against the defendant and also sought a decree charged on the suit property on the plea that the defendant had provided that property as security by depositing its title deed with him, in a mortgage. The Trial Court granted the personal decree but refused the claim for decree charged on the property. Hence the plaintiff's appeal.

3. The question is whether the plaintiff has to pay court fee, advalorem, on the amount for which charge is claimed over the suit property.

4. Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, governs appeals. It says that the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. The subject-matter of the appeal in hand is the plea of the appellant/plaintiff that he is entitled to a decree to the extent of the plaint cla






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