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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 27

VARADACHARIAR
Muhammad Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Shaik Muhammad Malumiar – Respondent


ORDER

Varadachariar, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of the decision of the District Munsif of Negapatam on certain preliminary issues in O.S. No. 232 of 1933. It is rather unfortunate that Issues 3 and 15 were dealt with together. Issue 3 related to the question of the maintainability of the suit as framed. Issue 15 raised the question whether the suit was properly valued and whether proper court-fees were paid. The District Munsif states his conclusion as follows towards the end of para. 4 of his order:

Plaintifi is bound to frame his suit as one for the recovery of a specific sum of money and pay ad valorem court-fees thereon. He is informed that he could not value his suit at Rs. 400 under Section 7, Clause (iv) (f) but should value it at Rs. 1,873-12-6 under Section (7) Clause (1), Court-fees Act.

2. The basis for the above direction, so far as I am able to gather, is that in para. 3 of the plaint there is a reference to an account sent by the defendant to the plaintiff in April 1928 wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs. 1,873-12-6 of the plaintiffs money remained in the defendants hands. In para. 4, the plaint went on to say:

Even in the said account several items of deb





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