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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 1

The Secretary Of State For India – Appellant
Versus
Sarvepalli Venkatalakshmanna – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. We cannot subscribe to respondents contention that Government cannot under a decree recover the courts-fee decreed as payable to Government from a pauper plaintiff, whenever plaintiffs property is confined to a right to future maintenance. That contention is negatived by the Privy Council ruling in Rajindra Narain Singh v. Sundara Bibi (1925) ILR 47 All 385 : 49 MLJ 244 (FC), which also indicates the proper method of recovering such court-fee. That method is by the Court appointing a Receiver to collect the maintenance amount and pay to Government (by instalments if necessary in order that plaintiff may have something to live upon) the fee due by plaintiff. The appellants execution petition as it stands does not ask for relief in that form, and it should be amended. We grant leave to amend it accordingly. The amended petition is forwarded to the Lower Court for disposal in the light of the Privy Council decision quoted above. Each party will bear his own costs in this appeal.

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