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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 221

MACK
Kadiyala Peravadhannulu – Appellant
Versus
Kadiyala Peravadhannulu minor by mother and guardian Subbamma – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Somasundaram for Petitioner.
The Government Pleader (K. Kuttikrishna Menon) for Respondent.

Judgment

This petition raises a simple question of court-fee.

Petitioner is the defendant who in a joint family partition suit against him brought by his grandson was directed to pay a sum of over Rs. 20,000 on an account being taken of outstandings due. In an appeal to the District Court, he sought to value it under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 3,100+100 adopting’ the plaint valuation. The learned District Judge held on the strength of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Dhanukodi Nayakar, In re1, that he should pay ad valorem court-fee on the relief that he wished to avoid. In that decision the learned Full Bench overruled the decision in Nukala Venkatanandam, In re2, and held that in a final decree in an account suit, a defendant knew exactly the value of his relief and must pay court-fee accordingly.

Mr. Somasundaram has sought to differentiate between an ordinary suit for accounts and a partition suit in which he urges that liability under the final decree arises out of discovery of concealed assets, and also possibly fraudulent conduct on the part of the managing member. I am unable to see how for fiscal purposes the liability of a manager of a H


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