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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 336

M.VENKATASUBBA RAO, KT.
Madana Mohana Naiko – Appellant
Versus
Krupasindhu Naiko dead – Respondent


JUDGMENT

M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.

1. The question of law-referred to the Full Bench for determination is interesting and not covered by authority. When the appeal came to be heard by the referring Judges, it was found that the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was deficient and an order was thereupon made directing that the proper amount should be paid. So far the case presented no difficulty, but the question arose whether the learned Judges could require the appellant to pay the proper court-fee in the Court of First Instance. The doubt that has arisen, which has led to this reference, may be expressed as follows. Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act runs thus:

(i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit.

(ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of Appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the r




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