Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.R. NAVKAR, J.
Kailash Narain - Appellant
Vs.
Mangilal – Respondent
Misc. A. No.1 of 1971 (G)
Decided on : 17-04-1978
(2) Court-fees Act, 1870-S.11-rent deposited by a tenant in the Court under Section 5 of the 1955 Act or section 13 of the 1961 Act - plaintiff while withdrawing the amount is not required to pay Court-fees
1. In a suit for eviction, a decree for arrears of rent and eviction was passed. The defendant paid the amount decreed and handed over possession. The plaintiff decree-holder sought to execute the decree for realising Rs.348.50. This amount was paid by the decree-holder as Court-fees for withdrawing the amount of rent deposited by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. The defendant judgment-debtor objected that the amount could not be recovered from him by the decree-holder as no Court-fees was payable on withdrawal of the amount deposited during the pendency of the suit. The execution Court upheld the objection, but the first appellate Court ordered the recovery of the amount from the judgment-debtors.
Held: When rent is deposited during the pendency of an eviction suit either under section 5 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955 or under section 13 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, if the amount is withdrawn by the plaintiff, there is no need to pay Court-fees. 1971 JLJ 130 relied on.
2. If the plaintiff is not to pay the Court-fees, then to make the defendant liable for the same will not be justified and, therefore, in this case, the plaintiffs-respondents are not entitled to recover the amount from the defendants-appellants.
Appeal allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
