S.AIYAR, PHILLIPS
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, ] – Appellant
Versus
V. Seshagiri Row – Respondent
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 7(v)(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. 2,500 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 comas 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 Secti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.