Skip to content


Nimmagadda Mahalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Nimmagadda Ramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1937)1MLJ21
AppellantNimmagadda Mahalakshmamma and anr.
RespondentNimmagadda Ramayya
Cases ReferredRodger v. The Comptoir
Excerpt:
- - 2. but while holding the above we consider that section 151 may well apply to such a case as this......to pay the court-fee. the petitioners applied to the trial court under sections 144 and 151, civil procedure code, praying that interest on the above amount should be paid to them by the respondent. we do not consider that money paid to government in a pauper suit by way of court-fee can be held to be money liable to be dealt with by way of restitution, under section 144, civil procedure code. restitution seems to imply money paid by one party to the other or to the credit of the other and a restoration of that money with interest to the person entitled to it by the person to whom or to whose credit it was originally wrongly paid under orders of court. in this case the government are the recipients of the money.2. but while holding the above we consider that section 151 may well.....
Judgment:

Mockett, J.

1. In this pauper suit the petitioners-defendants were by the original decree ordered to pay Rs. 682-7-0 Court-fee to Government. On appeal that order was reversed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the court-fee. The petitioners applied to the trial Court under Sections 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that interest on the above amount should be paid to them by the respondent. We do not consider that money paid to Government in a pauper suit by way of court-fee can be held to be money liable to be dealt with by way of restitution, under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. Restitution seems to imply money paid by one party to the other or to the credit of the other and a restoration of that money with interest to the person entitled to it by the person to whom or to whose credit it was originally wrongly paid under orders of Court. In this case the Government are the recipients of the money.

2. But while holding the above we consider that Section 151 may well apply to such a case as this. The principle underlying the whole matter has been laid down in the case of Rodger v. The Comptoir D'Escompte de Paris (1871) L.R. 3 P.C. 465 which case has been the subject of numerous decisions in India. But Section 151 is discretionary. We have perused the judgment of the appellate Court and we observe that the learned Judges agreed with the finding of fact imputing the putting up of a false case with regard to an adoption by the petitioners. They also made no order as to the costs of the memorandum of objections which related to the question of court-fee. For the above reasons and generally on a consideration of the facts we do not consider this is a case for awarding interest under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.


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