Skip to content


Abinash Chandra Vs. Shekhar Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All282; (1918)ILR40All353; 44Ind.Cas.666
AppellantAbinash Chandra
RespondentShekhar Chand and ors.
Excerpt:
.....section 7, vi - suit for pre-emption--suit partly decreed and partly dismissed--appeal raising questions both as to true price and as to the right to pre-empt--court 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..........the appeal being divisible into two parts, and the sole question which arises in one part of the appeal respecting the two villages being a question of consideration, the appellant must pay an ad valorem court fee as laid down in the ruling in hafiz ahmad v. sobha ram (1884) i. l., r., 6 all., 488. in regard to the three remaining villages, as the right to pre-empt is in dispute, the court fee in respect thereto must be calculated according to section 7, clause vi, of the court fees act. on behalf of the appellant it is urged that the question of consideration arises on the whole appeal and as that is not the sole question, inasmuch as the right of pre-emption is in dispute in respect to at least three villages, under the ruling quoted he need only pay court fees on five times the.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The facts are fully set out in the referring order of the Taxing Officer. The present appeal is divisible into two parts. In regard to the three villages Rampur, Lachmipur, and Jotepur, the suit has teen dismissed, and it has been held that the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption in these villages. In regard to Parkariar and Cheontaha the court below has held that the right to pre-empt exists, and it has directed the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 21,000 as the value thereof. The whole sale deed purported to be for the sum of Rs. 44,000. The plaintiff sought to pre-empt the whole property upon the payment of Rs. 2,500. The court below has held that Rs. 44,000 is the correct amount, and in respect of the two villages Parkariar and Cheontaha it has directed the payment of a proportionate part, namely the sum of Rs. 21,000. The appellant claims to be allowed to appeal on the payment of a court fee based upon five times the revenue of all five villages. The Taxing Officer's opinion is that, the appeal being divisible into two parts, and the sole question which arises in one part of the appeal respecting the two villages being a question of consideration, the appellant must pay an ad valorem court fee as laid down in the ruling in Hafiz Ahmad v. Sobha Ram (1884) I. L., R., 6 All., 488. In regard to the three remaining villages, as the right to pre-empt is in dispute, the court fee in respect thereto must be calculated according to Section 7, Clause vi, of the Court Fees Act. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that the question of consideration arises on the whole appeal and as that is not the sole question, inasmuch as the right of pre-emption is in dispute in respect to at least three villages, under the ruling quoted he need only pay court fees on five times the Government revenue, as mentioned above, on the whole estate. In my opinion the appeal is divisible into two clear and distinct parts, and the report of the Taxing Officer is correct. In regard to the two villages of Parkariar and Cheontaha, the court fee will be calculated ad valorem on the difference between 21/44 of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 21,000. The court fee in respect of the other three villages will be calculated according to Section 7, Clause vi, on the basis of five times the Government revenue. If the appellant so pleases, he may amend his plaint, of which notice will have to be given to the other side, and the office will calculate the court fees after the amendment has been made. I allow three weeks for the making of the amendment and after it has been made a necessary period will be allowed for the payment of any deficiency that may then be found due.


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