Skip to content


Sellamuthu Servagar Vs. Ramaswami Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ66
AppellantSellamuthu Servagar
RespondentRamaswami Pillai
Excerpt:
- - 1,000 when the case was formerly remanded was clearly erroneous. in a suit for an account like this, the valuation first fixed in the plaint is final for purposes of jurisdiction and stamp duty on the plaint, but does not preclude the plaintiff from getting a decree for such higher amount as the accounts may show he is entitled to......of the subordinate judge is right, as the district munsif's order requiring the plaintiff to pay stamp duty on an additional sum of rs. 1,000 when the case was formerly remanded was clearly erroneous. in a suit for an account like this, the valuation first fixed in the plaint is final for purposes of jurisdiction and stamp duty on the plaint, but does not preclude the plaintiff from getting a decree for such higher amount as the accounts may show he is entitled to. he must, however, pay extra stamp duty in execution on such higher amount.2. we may add that the relinquishment by the plaintiff made in consequence of such erroneous order of the district munsif, will not bind him, especially where, as in this case the district munsif has refused to allow the plaintiff to make the.....
Judgment:

1. The order of the Subordinate Judge is right, as the District Munsif's order requiring the plaintiff to pay stamp duty on an additional sum of Rs. 1,000 when the case was formerly remanded was clearly erroneous. In a suit for an account like this, the valuation first fixed in the plaint is final for purposes of jurisdiction and stamp duty on the plaint, but does not preclude the plaintiff from getting a decree for such higher amount as the accounts may show he is entitled to. He must, however, pay extra stamp duty in execution on such higher amount.

2. We may add that the relinquishment by the plaintiff made in consequence of such erroneous order of the District Munsif, will not bind him, especially where, as in this case the District Munsif has refused to allow the plaintiff to make the relinquishment.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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