Skip to content


Rachabhathuni Brahmam and anr. Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Guntur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad277; (1953)2MLJ307
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 33, Rule 13 - Order 41, Rule 10
AppellantRachabhathuni Brahmam and anr.
RespondentState of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Guntur
Appellant AdvocateG. Krishnamurthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredSecretary of State v. Thayam
Excerpt:
code of civil procedure (act v of 1908), order xxxiii, rule 13 and order xli, rule 10--appeal in forma pauperis--lower court's decree--court-fee due to government--application for security--incompetent;an application by the government to direct an appellant in an appeal filed in forma pauperis to furnish security for the court-fee due to it under the lower court's decree is incompetent under order xli, rule 10, of the civil procedure code (act v of 1908). nor does order xxxiii, rule 13, support such an application.;secretary of state for indian v. thayammal (1936) 45 l.w. 186 approved. - - .....the appeal therefrom, cannot be supported in law. the appellant was permitted to file the suit in 'forma pauperis' and also the appeal in 'forma pauperis.' in - 'secretary of state v. thayam-mal', air 1937 mad 267 (a), pandrang row j. held that where the plaintiff was allowed to sue the defendants in 'forma pauperis' and was directed to pay the court-fee to the government and there was a further appeal in 'forma pauperis', an application by the government to direct the appellant to furnish security for court-fee due to it under the lower court's decree is incompetent under order 41, rule 10, civil p. c. the learned judge also held that order 33, rule 13, civil p. c. did not support such an application. with respect, we are in complete agreement with this decision.2. the appeal is allowed.....
Judgment:
1. The order of the learned Judge Ramaswami J. directing the appellant to furnish security for stamp duty payable to Government as per decree of the Court below and for the stamp duty payable on the appeal therefrom, cannot be supported in law. The appellant was permitted to file the suit in 'forma pauperis' and also the appeal in 'forma pauperis.' In - 'Secretary of State v. Thayam-mal', AIR 1937 Mad 267 (A), Pandrang Row J. held that where the plaintiff was allowed to sue the defendants in 'forma pauperis' and was directed to pay the court-fee to the Government and there was a further appeal in 'forma pauperis', an application by the Government to direct the appellant to furnish security for court-fee due to it under the lower Court's decree is incompetent under Order 41, Rule 10, Civil P. C. The learned Judge also held that Order 33, Rule 13, Civil P. C. did not support such an application. With respect, we are in complete agreement with this decision.

2. The appeal is allowed and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3059 of 1952 dismissed.


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