Skip to content


Eacharan Patter and anr. Vs. Appu Patter and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad16
AppellantEacharan Patter and anr.
RespondentAppu Patter and ors.
Cases ReferredSubramanya Bharatengal v. Kunnan Civil Revision Petition No.
Excerpt:
court fees act - act vii of 1870, sections 6, 7(ix), 17--redemption suit against mortgagee in possession--arrears of rent covenanted for, to be deducted from the mortgage amount. - - 328 it is distinctly said that the suit was to redeem the land and to recover arrears of rent. best, j.shephard, j.1. as i understand the reference, the suit is an ordinary suit for redemption in which, owing to the fact that the mortgagee in possession has not paid the stipulated rent, the plaintiff asks for an account, in taking which the arrears of rent will be deducted from the mortgage amount.2. in my opinion the court fee ought in such a case to be computed according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage. in konna panikar v. karunakara i.l.r. 16 mad. 328 it is distinctly said that the suit was to redeem the land and to recover arrears of rent. on that basis the judgment proceeds. subramanya bharatengal v. kunnan civil revision petition no. 387 of 1889 (unreported) seems exactly in point.3. i would answer the reference by holding that the fee must be computed.....
Judgment:

Shephard, J.

1. As I understand the reference, the suit is an ordinary suit for redemption in which, owing to the fact that the mortgagee in possession has not paid the stipulated rent, the plaintiff asks for an account, in taking which the arrears of rent will be deducted from the mortgage amount.

2. In my opinion the Court fee ought in such a case to be computed according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage. In Konna Panikar v. Karunakara I.L.R. 16 Mad. 328 it is distinctly said that the suit was to redeem the land and to recover arrears of rent. On that basis the judgment proceeds. Subramanya Bharatengal v. Kunnan Civil Revision Petition No. 387 of 1889 (unreported) seems exactly in point.

3. I would answer the reference by holding that the fee must be computed on the amount of the mortgage.

Best, J.

4. The suit is not for redemption and rent, but for redemption on payment of the kanom amount, the arrears of rent due from the kanomdar being deducted.

5. I am of opinion that the Court fee payable must be calculated on the kanom amount.


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