Skip to content


Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal Vs. Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ791
AppellantMalikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal
RespondentMalikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal
Cases ReferredChingacham Vitil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vitil Gopal Menon I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - we therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will be calculated in both courts in the manner usual in a suit capable of valuation as this suit clearly is......on these plaintiffs the result would be the same as if the deed were cancelled. as observed in chingacham vitil sankaran nair v. chingacham vitil gopal menon i.l.r. (1906) m. 18 the question whether section 7, para iv, clause (c) of the court fees act applies or not must depend on the substance of the claim and not on the mere words which a plaintiff may choose to introduce into his plaint with reference to it. the prayer, so far as plaintiffs nos. 2 to 25 are concerned, must, therefore, be taken to be a prayer for the cancellation of the deed, and the subordinate judge was right in holding that ad valorem fee must be paid. we therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will be calculated in both courts in the manner usual in a suit capable of valuation as this suit clearly is......
Judgment:

1. In this case the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 were through their guardians parties to the deed regarding which the declaration is sought. If a declaration were given that the deed is not binding on these plaintiffs the result would be the same as if the deed were cancelled. As observed in Chingacham Vitil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vitil Gopal Menon I.L.R. (1906) M. 18 the question whether Section 7, Para IV, Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act applies or not must depend on the substance of the claim and not on the mere words which a plaintiff may choose to introduce into his plaint with reference to it. The prayer, so far as plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 are concerned, must, therefore, be taken to be a prayer for the cancellation of the deed, and the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that ad valorem fee must be paid. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will be calculated in both Courts in the manner usual in a suit capable of valuation as this suit clearly is. The objection memo is allowed with costs.


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