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

1963 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12

KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
Beepathumma and Others v. Shambhatta and Others


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Government Pleader

1The question raised in these seven Civil Revision Petitions is of the court fee payable on applications under S.9 sub-s.(3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 . The courts below have held the applications under sub-s.(3) to be a species of applications under sub-s.(1) of S.9 of the Act which are chargeable under sub-s.(4) of the section. Counsel for the applicants contend that sub-s.(3) of S.9 is independent of sub-s.(1), that the court fee payable on an application under sub-s.(3) is as provided in R.7(2) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Rules, 1958, or in sub-s.(3) of S.11 of the Act. Notice of these Civil Revision Petitions has been given to the State and the Government Pleader is also heard on the matter.

2The relevant Sections of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act 1958, as amended by Act II of 1961 (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act) read thus:
S.9.(1)
"Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or in any other law for the time being in force, any agriculturist may apply to the Court to reopen any subsisting transaction, whether reduced to writing or not, on the ground that it is really a transaction, of debt or th























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