Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal
Versus
Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal
Decided On : 02.02.1910
Court Fees Act - Declaration of Deed - The court held that the substance of the claim, not the mere words used in the plaint, determines the applicability of the Court Fees Act. The prayer for declaration of the deed was considered as a prayer for cancellation, requiring ad valorem fee to be paid.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought a declaration regarding a deed, with plaintiffs 2 to 25 being parties through their guardians. The court held that the prayer for declaration was to be taken as a prayer for cancellation, requiring ad valorem fee to be paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that ad valorem fee must be paid for the prayer for declaration, which was considered as a prayer for cancellation.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Court Fees Act to the prayer for declaration of the deed, and whether it should be considered as a prayer for cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi: The substance of the claim, not the words used in the plaint, determines the applicability of the Court Fees Act. The prayer for declaration was considered as a prayer for cancellation, requiring ad valorem fee to be paid.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court allowed the objection memo with costs.
1. In this case the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 were through their guardians parties to the deed regarding which the declaration is sought. If a declaration were given that the deed is not binding on these plaintiffs the result would be the same as if the deed were cancelled. As observed in Chingacham Vitil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vitil Gopal Menon I.L.R. (1906) M. 18 the question whether Section 7, Para IV, Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act applies or not must depend on the substance of the claim and not on the mere words which a plaintiff may choose to introduce into his plaint with reference to it. The prayer, so far as plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 are concerned, must, therefore, be taken to be a prayer for the cancellation of the deed, and the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that ad valorem fee must be paid. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will be calculated in both Courts in the manner usual in a suit capable of valuation as this suit clearly is. The objection memo is allowed with costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
