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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 300

CURGENVEN
Manikkam Pillai – Appellant
Versus
N. M. Nagasami Ayyar – Respondent


ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioner is a landholder and he sues the defendants, who occupy a holding under him, to eject them from part of a tank-bed upon which he alleged that they had encroached. A preliminary issue has been framed as to the correct court-fee to be paid, and this revision petition has been presented against an order requiring payment of an ad valorem fee under Section 7, Clause 5(c), Court-fees Act, which provides that, where land pays no revenue, the value is to be taken as fifteen times the net profits, or if no net profits have arisen therefrom, as the value of similar land in the neighbourhood. It is contended that the appropriate provision is Article 17-B, Schedule 2 of the Act, which relates to plaints in suits where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.

2. The contention is supported by two separate arguments. The reliefs asked for were the eviction of the defendants, an injunction restraining them from interfering with possession and a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the mud which, to make the land cultivable, they had thrown upon it. It is suggested

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