Skip to content


Guruvajamma Vs. Venkatakrishnama Chetti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad34
AppellantGuruvajamma
RespondentVenkatakrishnama Chetti and ors.
Excerpt:
court fees act - act vii of 1870, section 7, clause iv(d)--valuation by plaintiff of relief sought--increase of valuation by court and return of plaint for want of jurisdiction--invalidity of order. - - 1. we are clearly of opinion that the learned judge is wrong in holding that;1. we are clearly of opinion that the learned judge is wrong in holding that; the valuation given in the plaint for an injunction can be questioned.2. section 7, clause iv(d), of the court fees act, vii of 1870, requires that in a suit for an injunction the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. the plaintiff in this case values the relief, at rs. 50, and therefore the city civil court had jurisdiction.3. there is no authority for holding that the court has power to increase the value.4. the appeal is allowed. the defendant must pay the costs of the appeal.
Judgment:

1. We are clearly of opinion that the learned Judge is wrong in holding that; the valuation given in the plaint for an injunction can be questioned.

2. Section 7, Clause IV(d), of the Court Fees Act, VII of 1870, requires that in a suit for an injunction the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. The plaintiff in this case values the relief, at Rs. 50, and therefore the City Civil Court had jurisdiction.

3. There is no authority for holding that the Court has power to increase the value.

4. The appeal is allowed. The defendant must pay the costs of the appeal.


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