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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 79

KRISHNASWAMI AYYANGAR


ORDER

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.

1. The matter comes before me on a reference made by the Taxing Officer. The suit out of which the present second appeal has been sought to be preferred was instituted on 13th December 1941 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on land alleged to be in the lawful possession of the plaintiff as a usufructuary mortgagee. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction on her own valuation at Rs. 100, a course which was open to her under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d), Court-fees Act, read with Section 8, Suits Valuation Act. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and thereupon defendant 1 appealed to the District Court. The appeal was disposed of on 4th October 1943 and it resulted in a reversal of the decree passed by the District Munsif. The plaintiff is now endeavouring to file a second appeal and she filed her memorandum in this Court on 3rd January 1944. Between the date when the District Court passed its decree and the date when the second appeal was filed here, a notification has been issued by the High Court under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, with the previous sanction of the Pr



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