Skip to content


Ponnuswami Nadar and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in159Ind.Cas.454; (1935)68MLJ327
AppellantPonnuswami Nadar and anr.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
- .....proceedings, some portions of the mortgaged items were acquired and the sum represents the amount paid in respect of these portions. the money is now in court and stands to the credit of the last male-holder. the question is, what is the proper relief that the plaintiff must pray for in regard to this amount? the plaintiff says he is entitled to ask for a declaration plus consequential relief. he says that he can claim an injunction restraining the defendants from applying for the payment of the sum and the consequential ielief he has accordingly prayed for in an injunction. in my opinion there is no need to ask for an injunction. it is not by the defendants' application that the plaintiff is prejudiced but by the payment by court. that being so, the additional relief for the issue of.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba, J.

1. The serious contest is in regard to the Court-fee payable on the amount covered by the land acquisition award. The plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner of Annaswami Nadar, the last Male-holder, has filed the present suit. Annaswami Nadar's widow mortgaged certain items and eventually the interest of the mortgagees vested in one Danda-yudapani. In certain land acquisition proceedings, some portions of the mortgaged items were acquired and the sum represents the amount paid in respect of these portions. The money is now in Court and stands to the credit of the last male-holder. The question is, what is the proper relief that the plaintiff must pray for in regard to this amount? The plaintiff says he is entitled to ask for a declaration plus consequential relief. He says that he can claim an injunction restraining the defendants from applying for the payment of the sum and the consequential ielief he has accordingly prayed for in an injunction. In my opinion there is no need to ask for an injunction. It is not by the defendants' application that the plaintiff is prejudiced but by the payment by Court. That being so, the additional relief for the issue of an injunction is both unnecessary and superfluous. The proper relief therefore that should be prayed for, is one for declaration alone. The Court-fee that is leviable is Rs. 100 under Article 17A(1) of the Second Schedule of the Court-Fees Act. The amount covered by the award being in the possession of the Court, it is conceded that no prayer for possession is necessary.

2. The only other question that has been raised is in regard to items 23, 24 and 25 in the possession of defendants 1, 13 and 14. Mr. P.V. Rajamannar for the Government Pleader concedes that the Court-fee paid in respect of the relief pertaining to these items is correct.

3. This is my order on the Civil Revision Petition and I make no order as to costs.


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