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

1941 Supreme(Mad) 330

HORWILL
Amara Narasimhulu Chetty – Appellant
Versus
Thamidalapati China Ramayya Naidu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner purchased a plot of land in Court; auction for a sum of Rs. 239. He was unable to obtain possession and brought the suit out of which this petition arises for possession of the property. He valued the suit at the amount which he had paid in Court auction. The Court thought that insufficient and arbitrarily fixed the valuation at Rs. 1,000 ; and the District Munsif asked the plaintiff whether he would accept that figure or whether he would prefer to have a commission issued to determine its value. The plaintiff accepted the valuation of Rs. 1,000 and paid the additional court-fee. The defendants contended in their written statement that the value of the property was considerably over Rs. 3,000 and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif, although he did not determine the actual value of the property, came to the conclusion on the data available to him that it was clear that whether the value of the property was as high as the defendants stated or not, the value certainly considerably exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction. He therefore returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The matter was taken on ap






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