Back
DIPAK MISRA, A.M.KHANWILKAR, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
J. Vasanthi – Appellant
Versus
N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the appellants calling in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.R.P. (MD) No. 847 of 2015 (PD), whereby the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A. No. 94 of 2014 in Original Suit No. 20 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the applicant/defendant for dismissal of the Original Suit on the ground of payment of inadequate court fee by placing reliance on a wrong provision of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act”).
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the “A Schedule property”, as appended to the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff’s father, late Raja Chidambara Reddiyar from one Balasundara Iyyer on 12.08.1943 through document No. 412/1943 and also “B schedule property” was purchased by him from one Swaminatha Iyyer on 09.08.1943 through document No. 238/1943. After the purchase, he got the patta transferred in his name and paid the government taxes and enjoyed the properties. On 21.02.1948 through document No
No case law in the provided list contains explicit signals—such as "overruled", "reversed", or "abrogated"—that would categorise it as bad law. All summaries present a definitive statement of legal principles without any flagging remarks that the authorities were later rejected or criticized.
All nine cases exhibit clear, unambiguous statements of law that are likely cited as authority in later decisions, and none of the excerpts contain language indicating contrary treatment. Therefore, each case is reasonably grouped under the *Followed* pattern.
**Devnarayan Sharma VS Ramphool - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1067** – Presents a rule on fine or premium amounts after company amalgamation; no contrary treatment noted.
**Chellakannu VS Kolanji - 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 847** – References the applicability of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act; no contrary citations seen.
**Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh VS Randhir Singh - 2010 2 Supreme 670** – Sets out court‑fee computability under Section 7(iv)(c) of the 1870 Act; appears to be a straightforward application of the statute.
**Gnanambal Ammal VS Kannappa Pillai - 1958 0 Supreme(Mad) 372** – Deals with valuation for court‑fee and jurisdiction; no controversy indicated.
**Rathnavarmaraja VS Vimla - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 78** – Declares that a defendant cannot move the High Court in revision against an order adjudging payment of court fee; the wording suggests a settled rule.
**Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. VS M. Shanmugam - 2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 1994** – States that a plaintiff’s suit cannot be rejected when a cause of action is present; typical procedural principle.
**G. Seethadevi VS R. Govindaraj - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 589** – Establishes that the valuation of a suit for declaration of a sale deed depends on the plaintiff’s admission of power‑of‑attorney execution, pursuant to the Court Fee Act; a clear rule.
**P. Thillai Selvan VS Shyna Paul - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3364** – Indicates that valuation and limitation issues are mixed questions of law and fact, to be decided at trial; stated principle, no contrary treatment.
**K. Palaniswamy & Another VS S. B. Subramani & Another - 2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 3455** – Asserts that a suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and raises questions suitable for the court; a routine procedural standard.
Given the absence of any contradictory language, these cases are best categorised as *Followed*.
None. Each case summary contains a definitive legal statement with no mention of being challenged, questioned, or overruled. Consequently, there is no source of uncertainty that would warrant placing any case in an ambiguous category. All can be reasonably treated as *Followed* in the context of this analysis.
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
