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

1950 Supreme(Mad) 392

BASHEER AHMED SAYEED, GOVINDA MENON
Burra Venkata Kamaraju. – Appellant
Versus
Nemethunissa Begum Saheba. – Respondent


Advocates:
T. Suryanarayana for Appellants.
E. Venkatesam and C. V. Dikshitulu for Respondents.

Govinda Menon, J.-In the final decree passed in A.S.No. 50 of 1942 by this Court clause 2 is in the following terms: "That the petitioners do recover from the estate of the first respondent (first defendant) the sum of Rs. 18,961-13-1 on account of mesne profits with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from 3rd May, 1941, till date of payment of the said amount." Clause 6 of the decree states that each party do bear his own costs in the lower Court. In the execution proceedings of that decree, the decree-holder claimed a sum of Rs. 1,117-7-0 being the court-fee stamp payable on Rs. 18,961-13-1 as costs due to him in execution. The learned District Judge found that the decree-holder was not entitled to that amount because the decree definitely stated that the decree-holder shall be entitled only to the specific sum and that each party do bear his own costs. In such circumstances the learned District Judge disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,117-7-0 as claimed. The question is whether he is right. The third paragraph of section 11 of the Court-Fees Act states that:

"Where a decree directs an inquiry as to mesne profits from the institution of the suit, and a final decree is passed in ac








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