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

1915 Supreme(Mad) 439

S.AIYAR, PHILLIPS
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, – Appellant
Versus
Vennavalli Seshagiri Rao And – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. The appellant brought a suit for recovery of the suit lands and for rent against a tenant and valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction according to the market value of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) and Section 7V(d) of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870). He accordingly presented the plaint before the Subordinate Judge, but it was returned for presentation before the District Munsif on the ground that, if valued under the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the value of the suit would be below Rs. 2500, and the Question has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal as to which provision of law should be applied in valuing the suit for purposes of jurisdiction.

2. The Court Fees Act was amended by Act VI of 1905 and a new category of suits was added to Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as Clause XI(cc), i.e., for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant. Undoubtedly the present suit comes under this category, and the effect of the amendment is to remove such a suit from Section 7, Clause V, to Section 7, Clause XI, of the Court Fees Act. All suits falling under Section 7(


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