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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 186

KRISHNAN
Sundara Ramanujam Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Sivalingam Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnan, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from a suit brought by plaintiff to enforce specific performance of a contract to sell a shop by directing the defendant to deliver a proper sale-deed to him on his paying the price into Court and for recovery of possession of the property. The question that arises for decision is what is the proper value of this suit for purposes of jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act makes the value for Court fees and for jurisdiction the same in such suits. We have therefore to see under what provision or provisions of the Court Fees Act the suit has to be valued. The District Munsif held that it was one for recovery of possession and should be valued under Section 7, Clause V(e) of the Act and as that value was over Rs. 3,000, the pecuniary limit of his jurisdiction, he returned the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. On appeal the Subordinate Judge upheld that view and hence the revision to us by the plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff contends that the suit falls under Clause X(a) of Section 7 and not under Clause V at all. The defendant on the other hand argues that the suit falls under Clause V(e) and its value is either t














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