Skip to content


Anil Kumar Sahney and anr. Vs. Satish Kumar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1980)1SCC615; 1980(12)LC139(SC)
AppellantAnil Kumar Sahney and anr.
RespondentSatish Kumar and anr.
Excerpt:
- section 100: [dr.arijit pasayat & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] second appeal manner of disposal decree in suit for declaration, possession and injunction between co-sharers - setting aside of decree on ground that partition was not valid in view of section 14 of w.b. land reforms act, 1955 held, it is improper when no evidence was available to show that partition did not take place prior to introduction of section 14 of w.b. l.f. act. - apart from that we have examined the matter and feel satisfied that the appeal to this court should be allowed and the high court directed to deal with the appeal denovo......there is any need to change the earlier order passed by us where we had allowed the appeal.2. the subject matter of the appeal is one of court-fee and of delay in filing the appeal. but there is no room for doubt in the light of the happening as set out before us. actually, the subject matter of the appeal to the high court itself is only one of court-fee. the plaint having been rejected on the ground that sufficient court-fee was not paid, it is all a storm in a tea cup. apart from that we have examined the matter and feel satisfied that the appeal to this court should be allowed and the high court directed to deal with the appeal denovo. the high court will certainly remember that after all the matter is only one of court fee and the appellant is willing to pay the alternative court.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer J.

1. Having heard Mr. Vohra and Mr. Bhandare, we do not think there is any need to change the earlier order passed by us where we had allowed the appeal.

2. The subject matter of the appeal is one of Court-fee and of delay in filing the appeal. But there is no room for doubt in the light of the happening as set out before us. Actually, the subject matter of the appeal to the High Court itself is only one of Court-fee. The plaint having been rejected on the ground that sufficient Court-fee was not paid, it is all a storm in a tea cup. Apart from that we have examined the matter and feel satisfied that the appeal to this Court should be allowed and the High Court directed to deal with the appeal denovo. The High Court will certainly remember that after all the matter is only one of Court fee and the appellant is willing to pay the alternative Court fee which is a larger sum. Even so the appeal will have to be disposed of by the High Court and so we remit the case back to the High Court directing it to the appeal on file and pass appropriate orders. If unlimited appellate jurisdiction has been vested in the District Court, the High Court will make the case cover to the District Judge's Court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter.


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