Skip to content


Bajilal Vs. Gobardhan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All265
AppellantBajilal
RespondentGobardhan Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....5 - section 7, clause ix--reference--court fee--foreclosure suit--plaintiff ordered to discharge prior mortgage--validity of mortgage challenged in appeal--ad valorem fee. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9..........condition precedent to foreclosure, the court below held that the appellant was bound to redeem a prior mortgage by payment of a sum of rs. 5,941-6-5. baji lal has appealed against this portion of the decree and the office reported that the memorandum of appeal should bear an ad valorem fee on this amount. the taxing officer took the same view, but has referred the case under section 5. it is not easy to reconcile all the decisions cited but in my opinion the later decisions support the view taken by the office. that view is in accord with the ratio decidendi in nepal rai v. debi prasad weekley notes 1905 p. 40.2. in a reference under section 5 in jhandu mal v. himmat second appeal of 1907 from the decree of the additional judge of meerut, the learned judge who disposed of the reference.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. The appellant Baji Lal sued to foreclose a mortgage. As a condition precedent to foreclosure, the court below held that the appellant was bound to redeem a prior mortgage by payment of a sum of Rs. 5,941-6-5. Baji Lal has appealed against this portion of the decree and the office reported that the memorandum of appeal should bear an ad valorem fee on this amount. The Taxing Officer took the same view, but has referred the case under Section 5. It is not easy to reconcile all the decisions cited but in my opinion the later decisions support the view taken by the office. That view is in accord with the ratio decidendi in Nepal Rai v. Debi Prasad Weekley Notes 1905 p. 40.

2. In a reference under Section 5 in Jhandu Mal v. Himmat second appeal of 1907 from the decree of the Additional Judge of Meerut, the learned Judge who disposed of the reference said: The appellant plaintiff seeks by this appeal to get rid of a liability imposed on him by the decree under appeal to pay off Kalyan's prior mortgage as a condition precedent to bringing the mortgaged property to sale' and he held that the appellant must pay an ad valorem court-fee. I am unable to distinguish the principle therein laid down from that involved in the present case. My answer to the reference is that the office report is correct.

3. I allow the appellant one month within which to pay the deficient court-fee.


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