Skip to content


Govindas Kasandas and anr. Vs. Dayabhai Savaichand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom22
AppellantGovindas Kasandas and anr.
RespondentDayabhai Savaichand
Excerpt:
court fees act viii of 1870, section 7, clause f, and section 11 - suit for accounts--valuation of suit. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of.....charles sargent, c.j.1. the district judge was wrong in directing that the value of the relief sought should not be fixed fey plaintiffs at less than rs. 10,000, the alleged value in the plaint of the property left by the testator. by section 7, clause of the court fees act, vii of 1870, the plaintiff in a suit for accounts must state the amount at which he values the relief sought, but he is free to fix it as he thinks proper, subject to the provision of section of which precludes the execution of the decree in case it exceeds such value until the execution fee has been paid. we must, therefore, reverse the order of rejection of 23rd april, 1883, and direct that the plaintiffs do within a month amend their plaint by stating the amount at which they value the relief sought and stamp their.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The District Judge was wrong in directing that the value of the relief sought should not be fixed fey plaintiffs at less than Rs. 10,000, the alleged value in the plaint of the property left by the testator. By Section 7, clause of the Court Fees Act, VII of 1870, the plaintiff in a suit for accounts must state the amount at which he values the relief sought, but he is free to fix it as he thinks proper, subject to the provision of section of which precludes the execution of the decree in case it exceeds such value until the execution fee has been paid. We must, therefore, reverse the order of rejection of 23rd April, 1883, and direct that the plaintiffs do within a month amend their plaint by stating the amount at which they value the relief sought and stamp their plaint accordingly, and that in default of their doing so, their plaint do stand Rejected. Appellants to have their costs of this appeal unless they commit such default as above mentioned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //