IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J
U.K. Appu - Appellant
Versus
Uma Devi Rajan And Others - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1051 of 1971
Decided on : 15-11-1973
Court Fee - Administration Suit - Section 39(1) read with Section 50 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - The court held that the suit is one for administration and need be valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction only on the said basis. Certain reliefs asked for by the plaintiff were held to be outside the scope of administration suit, and the plaintiff was directed to pay separate court fee for those reliefs. The court also directed the plaintiff to value the suit separately regarding the relief of injunction and pay the requisite court fee thereon. The court's decision on the preliminary issue relating to the court fee was challenged through civil revision petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a suit for the administration of the estate of a deceased industrialist. The plaintiff, the deceased's younger child, alleged that the 2nd defendant, her uncle, had taken possession of the estate and made unauthorized alienations and appropriations. The court was also asked to ascertain the movable and immovable properties left by the deceased and effect a division and distribution of the residual assets between the plaintiff and her sister.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was one for administration and that certain reliefs asked for by the plaintiff were outside the scope of administration suit, requiring separate court fees. The court also directed the plaintiff to value the suit separately regarding the relief of injunction and pay the requisite court fee thereon.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint, with the court holding that certain reliefs asked for by the plaintiff were outside the scope of administration suit, requiring separate court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the suit was one for administration and that certain reliefs asked for by the plaintiff were outside the scope of administration suit, requiring separate court fees. The court also directed the plaintiff to value the suit separately regarding the relief of injunction and pay the requisite court fee thereon.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petitions filed by the defendants challenging the decision on the court fee. The court allowed the plaintiff's revision petition, setting aside the finding of the court below that the court fee paid on the plaint was not sufficient, and vacated the consequential directions issued to the plaintiff for amending the valuation of the suit and for payment of additional court fee.
ORDER :
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.
One Sri. V.K. Sankunni who was a prominent industrialist and business man of Calicut died on the 11th June, 1961, leaving behind him two daughters who were then aged only 19 years and 11 years respectively and considerable properties and assets. O.S No. 101 of 1967 on the file of the Sub Court, Calicut is a suit instituted by the younger child of the deceased Sankunni praying that the court should be pleased to administer the estate of the deceased after ascertaining the movable and immovable properties left by him and also the liabilities, if any, to be discharged and effect a division and distribution of the residual assets as between the plaintiff and her sister, the first defendant, and award to the plaintiff her share. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the younger brother of the deceased Sankunni and defendants 3 to 6 are his wife and children. Defendants 7 to 9 are close relations of the 2nd defendant. It is alleged in the plaint that taking advantage of the fact that at the time of the demise of Sri. Sankunni the plaintiff was only a minor and the 1st defendant, had only just then attained majority, was away in England with husband, the 2nd defendant entered upon the management of the estate the deceased and took possession of large amounts of liquid cash which had been kept in the residence of Sankunni and also all the other movable and immovable properties left by the deceased. According to the plaint thereafter the 2nd defendant was throughout in management and he was dealing with the properties purporting to act as a de facto guardian of the plaintiff and agent, of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's case is that in the course of such intermeddling with the estate, the 2nd defendant has effected certain unauthorised alienations and wrongly appropriated to himself substantial amounts belonging to the estate for which he is Accountable; in law to the legal heirs of the deceased, namely the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has stated that because of the deliberate attitude adopted by the 2nd defendant of withholding from her even the details regarding the properties and assets left by her deceased father, the plaintiff is compelled to seek the aid of the court to ascertain the movable and immovable properties belonging to the estate of deceased Sankunni including the businesses and plantations situated in the three States of Kerala, Mysore and Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff has prayed that the 2nd defendant who was in de facto management posing himself as the guardian of the plaintiff and as the authorised representative of the 1st defendant, should be made liable to render to the court satisfactory account relating to in management of the estate which is sought to be administered in the suit and to bring in all amounts that may be found to be in his possession as belonging to the estate consequent on accounts being taken. The plaintiff has also challenged certain transfers which had been made by the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 7, 9 and 10 etc. and prayed that those transactions should be ignored while ascertaining the estate available for administration. One of the contentions raised by the defendants in the written statements filed by them in the suit related to the sufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint and this formed the subject-matter of issue No. 57. The said issue was decided as a preliminary issue by the court below and a finding has been recorded thereon by the learned Subordinate Judge on the 20th July, 1971, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the action as an administration suit on payment of the fixed court fee of Rs. 200 u/s 39(1) read with Section 50 of the Kerala Court-Fees and suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In so holding the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the contesting defendants Nos. 2 onwards that the suit is in truth and substance one for partition, inge
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.