Skip to content


Balasundra Mudelly Vs. Rajalingam Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad172
AppellantBalasundra Mudelly
RespondentRajalingam Chettiar
Cases Referred and Narayan Raghunath v. Bhagvant Anant I.L.R. Bom. I.L.R. Mad.
Excerpt:
court fees act vii of 1870 - ad valorem fee chargeable on appeals against decrees under section 330 of the code of civil procedure. - 1. a preliminary objection is taken that the stamp duty paid is insufficient. there can be no doubt that the stamp duty payable with reference to the order appealed against which 1 directs the appellant to surrender possession to the respondent, is an ad valorem fee. mahbuban v. umrao begum i.l.r. calc. 720 and narayan raghunath v. bhagvant anant i.l.r. bom. i.l.r. mad. 420 is not inconsistent with this view. apparently the order then in question was treated as one in execution and the appeal was therefore held to be properly stamped as a miscellaneous appeal.2. now as to the sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on this appeal, viz., rs. 10, there is nothing to show that the house in dispute is of a value which will not be covered by that amount. we have consequently heard the appeal on the.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection is taken that the stamp duty paid is insufficient. There can be no doubt that the stamp duty payable with reference to the order appealed against which 1 directs the appellant to surrender possession to the respondent, is an ad valorem fee. Mahbuban v. Umrao Begum I.L.R. Calc. 720 and Narayan Raghunath v. Bhagvant Anant I.L.R. Bom. I.L.R. Mad. 420 is not inconsistent with this view. Apparently the order then in question was treated as one in execution and the appeal was therefore held to be properly stamped as a miscellaneous appeal.

2. Now as to the sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on this appeal, viz., Rs. 10, there is nothing to show that the house in dispute is of a value which will not be covered by that amount. We have consequently heard the appeal on the merits and in our opinion it fails. The findings in the previous suits establish that the debt for which the sale took place was one which bound the appellant as the vendor's son. The respondent is therefore entitled to possession of the appellant's share also. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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