Skip to content


Puthia Vittil Govinda Nambi and anr. Vs. Puthia Vittil Parameshwara Nambi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ548
AppellantPuthia Vittil Govinda Nambi and anr.
RespondentPuthia Vittil Parameshwara Nambi and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....2nd defendant, however has filed no appeal against the order dismissing the appeal, and therefore we cannot make any order in his favor. no one appears for the respondents. we set aside the order 'dismissing the suit, and restore the decree of the district.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is of a declaratory nature, and therefore the District judge was wrong in requiring an ad valorem, court fee. The cases cited do not apply. We observe that the judge dismissed the original suit on 5th March 1890, on the ground that, plaintiff had not paid the ad valorem fee. On the 13th March, he rejected; the appeal of the 2nd defendant on the ground that the latter had not paid the ad valorem fee on the appeal. Until the appeal was admitted it was not competent to the judge to pass any order dismissing the original suit.

2. The 2nd defendant, however has filed no appeal against the order dismissing the appeal, and therefore we cannot make any order in his favor. No one appears for the respondents. We set aside the order 'dismissing the suit, and restore the decree of the District Munsif.


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