Skip to content


Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Brij Raj Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 182 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1950All55
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 2 and 7
AppellantChief Inspector of Stamps
RespondentBrij Raj Singh
Advocates:Gopalji Mehrotra, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........appeal was filed by a male person. there is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the suit in such cases. there is, however, section 2(iv) according to which 'suit' includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit. applying the aforesaid definition of suit, if we substitute 'first appeal from a decree' where the word suit occurs in the proviso the proviso would read as follows;' provided that in a first appeal from a decree in a suit for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be an amount claimed to be payable for one year.'2. properly interpreted the proviso in such a case would mean an appeal arising out of a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Seth, J.

1. This is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Court Fees Act. A suit was brought for maintenance by a widow (sic) under forma pauperis and no court-fee was paid. The defendant husband appealed to the lower appellate Court. He paid court-fee on the amount payable for one year to the plaintiff in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(ii)(a). The Stamp authorities objected to this amount of court fee and claimed that court, fee was payable upon ten times that amount, their contention being that the proviso was not applicable when the appeal was filed by a male person. There is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the suit in such cases. There is, however, Section 2(iv) according to which 'suit' includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit. Applying the aforesaid definition of suit, if we substitute 'first appeal from a decree' where the word suit occurs in the proviso the proviso would read as follows;

' Provided that in a first appeal from a decree in a suit for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be an amount claimed to be payable for one year.'

2. Properly interpreted the proviso in such a case would mean an appeal arising out of a suit instituted for maintenance by a female or a minor. The appeal before the lower appellate Court in this case was such an appeal and, therefore, the value of the subject-matter of the appeal should be deemed to be the amount payable for one year. This is what the Court below has held. In my judgment the decision of the Court below is correct. This application in revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs because no one appears for the opposite party.


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