Skip to content


Ram Prasad Kalwar and anr. Vs. Musammat Ajanasia and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All280; (1922)ILR44All577; 68Ind.Cas.861
AppellantRam Prasad Kalwar and anr.
RespondentMusammat Ajanasia and ors.
Excerpt:
cross-objections - petition stating reasons for supporting decree--court-fees, payment of. - .....agree with the office report. in our opinion no ad valorem court fee was payable in regard to the cross objections filed by the respondent. the decree of the court of first instance was in favour of the respondents, as it totally dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. the respondents could support that decree on any ground, even on a ground other than that taken by the court of first instance. if for that purpose they filed a petition stating the reasons on which they supported the decree, that did not amount to cross objections for which an ad valorem court fee was payable. the result of the office report would be that the appellant had to pay court fee on the full amount claimed and the respondents, who held the decree of the court of first instance, had to pay another court fee for the same.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Ryves, JJ.

1. We do not agree with the office report. In our opinion no ad valorem court fee was payable in regard to the cross objections filed by the respondent. The decree of the court of first instance was in favour of the respondents, as it totally dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The respondents could support that decree on any ground, even on a ground other than that taken by the court of first instance. If for that purpose they filed a petition stating the reasons on which they supported the decree, that did not amount to cross objections for which an ad valorem court fee was payable. The result of the office report would be that the appellant had to pay court fee on the full amount claimed and the respondents, who held the decree of the court of first instance, had to pay another court fee for the same claim, that is to say, two sums of court fees would be realized in respect of the same claim from both the parties. This surely could not be the intention of the Legislature, and we do not think that the respondents were bound to pay ad valorem court fees on their cross objections in this case.


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