Skip to content


Daivachilaya Pillai and ors. Vs. Ponnathal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad459
AppellantDaivachilaya Pillai and ors.
RespondentPonnathal and ors.
Cases ReferredMoti Singh v. Kaunsilla I.L.R.
Excerpt:
court fees act - act vii of 1870, section 17--suit by reversioners to declare various alienations by a hindu widow to be invalid against them. - .....considered in narayana v. muttayan i.l.r. 7 mad. 1342. we agree with the lower courts that each separate alienation is a different subject within the meaning of section 17 of the court fees act. though all such alienations my be included in one suit, according to the course of decisions in this presidency, it does not follow that each alienation is not a separate subject requiring a separate court fee. each alienation creates a distinct right vesting in the alienee, and, therefore, when the reversioner seeks for a declaration that a number of distinct alienations are invalid, he must be held to be suing for that number of declarations. the test indicated in moti singh v. kaunsilla i.l.r. 16 ail 308 appears to us to contain the correct principle on which should be determined the.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the Judge's decision is correct. The point now raised as to whether a single fee of Rs. 10 is sufficient was not argued and considered in Narayana v. Muttayan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 134

2. We agree with the lower Courts that each separate alienation is a different subject within the meaning of Section 17 of the Court Fees Act. Though all such alienations my be included in one suit, according to the course of decisions in this Presidency, it does not follow that each alienation is not a separate subject requiring a separate Court fee. Each alienation creates a distinct right vesting in the alienee, and, therefore, when the reversioner seeks for a declaration that a number of distinct alienations are invalid, he must be held to be suing for that number of declarations. The test indicated in Moti Singh v. Kaunsilla I.L.R. 16 AIL 308 appears to us to contain the correct principle on which should be determined the question as to the number of declarations which are sought to be obtained in any particular suit.

3. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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