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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 239

KRISHNAN
In Re: G. B. Seethayamma – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnan, J.

1. This is a reference under the Court Fees Act that has been referred to me for disposal by the learned Chief Justice, the Taxing Officer having referred the matter for the decision of the Court. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree so far as the 11th defendant, the appellant before mo is concerned for the recovery of possession of a half share of the lands sold to him under Exhibit V by his father on payment of Rs. 12,000. The appellants appeal asks this Court to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the lands at all and that the suit should be dismissed as against the appellant. The question raised is what is the Court fee that the appellant has to pay on his appeal. No doubt as Sir Kumaraswami Sastri, J., has remarked in Porkodi Achi In re, A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 211 at p. 214, at p. 256:

The current of authority is clearly in favour of the view that the value of an appeal is not in all cases the value of the suit as originally filed but the value of the relief granted by the decree which a party wishes to get rid of.

2. Turning to the Court Fees Act, we find the governing rule applicable to appeals is the one in Schedule I, Clause 1 of the Act. It says




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