Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Balasidhantam And Ors.
Versus
Perumal Chetti, And Ors.
Decided On : 10 August, 1914
Court Fees Act - Interpretation of Section 7, clause XI (cc) - The court held that the suit was brought under Section 7, clause XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act, and the title of the plaintiffs need not be gone into. The court expressed no opinion on whether the documents constituted a sale with a condition to repurchase or a mortgage by conditional sale.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was brought under Section 7, clause XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act on payment of the court fees upon one year's rent. The court expressed no opinion on the nature of the documents presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for rent, even though the full amounts mentioned in the documents had been deposited in court. The court upheld the decree solely on this ground and dismissed the Second Appeal.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 7, clause XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act, entitlement to a decree for rent despite depositing the amount in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere deposit of the amount does not put an end to the relationship already subsisting, and the plaintiffs were entitled to sue for possession and for rent under the documents presented.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decree solely on the ground that the payment into court did not take away from the plaintiffs the right to sue for possession under the documents.
1. The suit was brought under Section 7, clause XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act on payment of the court fees upon one years rent. Therefore the title of the plaintiffs need not be gone into in this case. We express no opinion whether the documents, Ex. A, B, & 1, constitute a sale with a condition to repurchase or a mortgage by conditional sale. We are not to be understood as agreeing with the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived upon this point.
2. It is argued that as the full amounts mentioned in Exhibits A and B have been deposited in Court, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for rent. As was pointed out in Satyabai Behara v. Harabati (1907) I.L.R. 34 C. 223 and in Rukmani Bai v. Venkatesh (1907) I.L.R. 31 B 527, mere deposit of the amount does not put an end to the relationship already subsisting. Even if the plaintiffs were only mortgagees so long as Exhibit B subsists, they can sue for possession and for rent under it. We agree with the decisions of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts and hold that the payment into Court has not taken away from the plaintiffs the right to sue for possession under Exhibit B. We uphold the decree solely upon this ground. We think this is a fit case in which the parties should bear their own costs in this Court.
3. The Second Appeal is dismissed.
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
