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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 406

JACKSON
In Re: Venkitakrishna Pattar – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. Petitioner seeks to stay proceedings in O. S. No. 76 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat pending the revision of a question of Court-fee proper to the suit.

2. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration of rights of way and drainage over a certain paramba and for a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to remove the fences walls, etc., that have been built in defiance of the said rights.

3. The plaintiffs sought to value their suit under Section 7, Clause (4) (d) (Court-fees Act 7 of 1870) as if it were a simple suit for injunction. The District Munsif has correctly pointed out that it is a suit for declaration, and consequential relief falling under Section 7 (4) (c). He has then held applying the Madras proviso, that as the relief sought is with reference to immovable property the valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immovable property calculated in the manner provided for by para. 5 of the section. Accordingly plaintiffs have been ordered to pay half the value of the paramba, which they have reckoned according to Section 7, Clause 5 (b) at five times the revenue. The petitioner 9th defendant, contends that the value



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