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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 342

VENKATASUBBA RAO
The Secretary of State for India in Council – Appellant
Versus
Rm. P. Rm. M. Subramanian Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In the appeal that we have just disposed of, a question of court-fee has been raised on behalf of the Government under Section 12(ii) of the Court-Fees Act.

2. The suit is in effect one for partition and possession, brought by the plaintiff against his co-sharers. He claimed in the plaint two separate shares, each of one-eighth, on the ground that he purchased them from two different co-owners. He fixed the total value of the entire one-fourth share at Rs. 14,000 and paid in respect of the relief of "partition and separate possession" of that share, Rs. 100 as court-fee under Schedule II, Article 17-B (Madras Amendment) of the Court-Fees Act.

3. It must be mentioned that previous to the suit, he had applied to the Collector for separate registration, which was refused. He therefore prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to get himself registered as a landholder to the extent of the one-fourth share. In respect of this relief he paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Schedule II, Article 17-A (Madras Amendment).

4. Thus, the plaintiff paid on his plaint in respect of these two reliefs Rs. 200 as the court-fee. Here on the memorandum of appeal also, he p














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