Skip to content


Achuta Bhatta Vs. Manjunathayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ358
AppellantAchuta Bhatta
RespondentManjunathayya and anr.
Excerpt:
- - such a suit falls within art'.31 and a reference to rule 33 which defines the expression, the amount or value of the claim occurring in rules 31 and 32, clearly shows that rule 31 is not confined to cases in which court fees are payable ad valorem.1. we are of opinion that a suit for a declaration of right in respect of immoveable property is not a suit in which the subject ''matter of the claim does not admit of valuation' within the meaning of article 35 of the rules framed under the legal practitioners act. such a suit falls within art'. 31 and a reference to rule 33 which defines the expression, the amount or value of the claim occurring in rules 31 and 32, clearly shows that rule 31 is not confined to cases in which court fees are payable ad valorem. our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that a suit for a declaration of right in respect of immoveable property is not a suit in which the subject ''matter of the claim does not admit of valuation' within the meaning of Article 35 of the rules framed under the Legal Practitioners Act. Such a suit falls within Art'. 31 and a reference to Rule 33 which defines the expression, the amount or value of the claim occurring in Rules 31 and 32, clearly shows that Rule 31 is not confined to cases in which Court fees are payable ad valorem. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative.


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