Kandhaiya Ojha vs Musammat Jagrani Kuer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1924 Supreme(All) 89

PIGGOTT
Kandhaiya Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Musammat Jagrani Kuer – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - This matter Las been laid before me as Taxing Judge, in order that I may pronounce an opinion as to the amount of Court-fee legally payable by the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance, as also on their memorandum of appeal to the lower Appellate Court and in second appeal to this Court. There is a certain ambiguity about the wording of the plaint, although not, in my opinion, a material one. The suit was one by reversionary to the estate of a deceased Hindu against his widow in possession of the same. The relief sought is in the following words:

It may be held that the plaintiffs have a right and a perpetual injunction may be issued by the Court to the defendant restraining her, etc.

2. If stress be laid on the fact that the words are it may be held, and not it may be declared, then this is a suit to obtain an injunction, classified in Section 7 of Court-Fees Act (No. VII of 1870) under Clause 4(d). On the other hand, in stating the valuation of the suit, the plaintiffs used the following language:

For purposes of jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs. 3,038-7-0 and a Court-fee of Rs. 10 is paid. The relief for issue of injunction is valued at Rs. 10 and a C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document