Skip to content


Lachman Das Vs. Parshotam Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All252
AppellantLachman Das
RespondentParshotam Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
court-fees - suit on hundis--distinct causes of action--distinct subjects--act vii of 1870 (court-fees act), section 17. - 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 by the employees working in schools which are..........brought this action upon them.2. the defendant no. 1, who is appealing here, has paid court-fees calculated upon the total amount of the three hundis. the question is whether the amount of the court-fees as calculated is sufficient, or whether the defendant no. 1 is not bound, under section 17 of the court-fees act, to pay a court-fee based on the amount of each of the hundis separately.3. now it is argued that these three hundis only-make one cause of action. that i cannot understand. it is admitted that the plaintiff might bring three separate actions on these hundis, and each hundi would afford a separate cause of action. the suit embraces three separate and distinct subjects, and i am of opinion that the memorandum of appeal is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. In this ease the defendant No. 1 executed three different hundis on the same date, in favour of the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who constituted a firm. They were all payable at the same time. The first hundi was for Rs. 1, 133-7, and the second and third were for Rs. 1, 054-5 respectively. These three hundis were assigned by the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Plaintiff, and not having been paid on maturity, the Plaintiff brought this action upon them.

2. The defendant No. 1, who is appealing here, has paid court-fees calculated upon the total amount of the three hundis. The question is whether the amount of the court-fees as calculated is sufficient, or whether the defendant No. 1 is not bound, under Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, to pay a court-fee based on the amount of each of the hundis separately.

3. Now it is argued that these three hundis only-make one cause of action. That I cannot understand. It is admitted that the Plaintiff might bring three separate actions on these hundis, and each hundi would afford a separate cause of action. The suit embraces three separate and distinct subjects, and I am of opinion that the memorandum of appeal is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the memoranda of appeal in suit embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under the Court-fees Act. Therefore my answer to the reference is, that as the proper amount of court-fees has not been paid in this case, the appeal cannot be admitted unless the proper fee is paid. A fortnight will be allowed for making up the deficiency.

Oldfield J.

4. I concur.


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