Skip to content


Kanaran and ors. Vs. Komappan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad169
AppellantKanaran and ors.
RespondentKomappan and ors.
Cases ReferredAjoodhya Pershad v. Gunga Pershad I.L.R.
Excerpt:
court fees act - act vii of 1870, sections 7, 12--suit to cancel an instrument affecting land--partial interest of plaintiff in the land--appeal against an order for payment of additional court fees. - 1. in our opinion, the subordinate judge was wrong in valuing the plaint according to the value of the whole tarwad property. it is clear that the plaintiffs will not be gainers to that extent if they obtain a decree.2. it was argued for on behalf of the respondents that section 12 of the court fees act prevented our revising the decision of the subordinate judge, but it has been held by this court that where it is not a mere question of amount or arithmetical calculation the section does not apply--chandu v. kombi i.l.r. 9 mad. 208), ajoodhya pershad v. gunga pershad i.l.r., 6 cal., 249). we reverse the decree and remand the case to be dealt with according to law. appellants must have the costs of this appeal.
Judgment:

1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge was wrong in valuing the plaint according to the value of the whole tarwad property. It is clear that the plaintiffs will not be gainers to that extent if they obtain a decree.

2. It was argued for on behalf of the respondents that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act prevented our revising the decision of the Subordinate Judge, but it has been held by this Court that where it is not a mere question of amount or arithmetical calculation the section does not apply--Chandu v. Kombi I.L.R. 9 Mad. 208), Ajoodhya Pershad v. Gunga Pershad I.L.R., 6 Cal., 249). We reverse the decree and remand the case to be dealt with according to law. Appellants must have the costs of this appeal.


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