Skip to content


Alamelu Ammal Vs. Thayarammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1027 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Mad355
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Schedule - Article 1; Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 - Sections 8
AppellantAlamelu Ammal
RespondentThayarammal
Advocates:K. Raman and ;R. Sitaraman, Advs.;Govt. Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredSubramanya Iyer v. Lakshmana Ayyar
Excerpt:
- - the defendant has clearly made a claim, which is in the nature of a counter claim against the plaintiff in claiming the value ot improvements said to have been effected by him......he had claimed in the written stafement in a suit tor redemption.2. in paragraphs 10 and 14 of the written statement, the defendant contends that the plaintiff should not be allowed to redeem the othi in any event without paying the cosh of the improvements effected by the defendant. a sepecific issue has also been framed, issue 3, whether the defendant is entitled to the costs of improvements, if any, effected by him? section 8 of the court-fees act, 1955 provides that a written statement pleading a set oft on a counter claim shall be chargeable with court-fee in the same manner as a plaint.the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defendant in the suit, is that the claim of the defendant in the written statement is neither a set off nor a counter claim and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagadisan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvayami, directing the defendant in the suit to pay court fee upon the value of the improvements which he had claimed in the written stafement in a suit tor redemption.

2. In paragraphs 10 and 14 of the written statement, the defendant contends that the plaintiff should not be allowed to redeem the othi in any event without paying the cosh of the improvements effected by the defendant. A sepecific issue has also been framed, issue 3, whether the defendant is entitled to the costs of improvements, if any, effected by him? Section 8 of the Court-fees Act, 1955 provides that a written statement pleading a set oft on a counter claim shall be chargeable with court-fee in the same manner as a plaint.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defendant in the suit, is that the claim of the defendant in the written statement is neither a set off nor a counter claim and therefore Section 8 is not applicable. I am unable to accept that contention. The defendant has clearly made a claim, which is in the nature of a counter claim against the plaintiff in claiming the value ot improvements said to have been effected by him. Even under the old Court Fees Act, the decision in Subramanya Iyer v. Lakshmana Ayyar, : AIR1951Mad742 holds that in cases of this description court-fee is payable.

3. The decision of the court below is right. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.


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