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

1965 Supreme(Mad) 475

K.VEERASWAMI
Srimathi Periathayya alias P. Muthu Meenakshi Veerakamulu Ammal – Appellant
Versus
L. Narasinga Rao – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Rajagopala Iyer, for Petitioners.

Order:-

This is a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in an application made under section 151 of the Code for a direction for refund of the Court-fee paid on the plaint on the ground that by reason of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Madras Act XI of 1964, which came into force on 10th June, 1964, the suit stood abated and all the rights which had accrued to the plaintiffs prior to the amendment became unenforceable. The suit is stated to be for ejectment of the defendant-tenant. The Court below was of the view that inasmuch as there was no provision in the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, no refund of the Court-fee could be ordered. It also relied on Tarachand v. State1, where the view was taken that if in the Act provision was made for refund in particular cases, but not in the other cases, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code could not be invoked and the Act should be taken as exhaustive.

This Court also took a like view in Nagaratnam, In re.2 But there, PanchapakesaAyyar, J., directed issue of a certificate in exercise of the inherent pow







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