Skip to content


M. AzimuddIn Sahib and ors. Vs. S.E.S. Kadirsa Rowther and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in43Ind.Cas.995
AppellantM. AzimuddIn Sahib and ors.
RespondentS.E.S. Kadirsa Rowther and ors.
Cases ReferredKrishna Mallar v. Secretary of Slate
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 7(4) - injunction, prayer for, valuation of--suit for declaration and injunction as consequential relief--court-fee--wrong valuation--procedure amendment. - .....ramasami 18 ind. cas. 363 : (1913) m.w.n. 105, we hold that the plaintiff was entitled to value the injunction relief arbitrarily and such valuation is conclusive. the decision in krishna mallar v. secretary of slate 25 ind. cas. 375 : (1914) m.w.n. 767 is authority for the view that in cases where the plaintiff has wrongly valued the declaration and the consequential relief of injunction separately and given the sum of the two values as the value for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees, the proper course is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for amendment in order to give the value of the consequential relief of injunction alone under the last sentence of section 7, clause 4, of the court pees act and to mention that value in that plaint as the value for purposes of.....
Judgment:

1. Following Chelasami Ramiah v. chelasami Ramasami 18 Ind. Cas. 363 : (1913) M.W.N. 105, we hold that the plaintiff was entitled to value the injunction relief arbitrarily and such valuation is conclusive. The decision in Krishna Mallar v. Secretary of Slate 25 Ind. Cas. 375 : (1914) M.W.N. 767 is authority for the view that in cases where the plaintiff has wrongly valued the declaration and the consequential relief of injunction separately and given the sum of the two values as the value for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees, the proper course is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for amendment in order to give the value of the consequential relief of injunction alone under the last sentence of Section 7, Clause 4, of the Court Pees Act and to mention that value in that plaint as the value for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees. If along with the injunction realief, additional consequential relief or reliefs are prayed for, they should, of course, be also valued according to law. In this case, the additional relief of damages to the extent of Rs. 600 is prayed for, though the body of the plaint mentions only 'about Rs. 500' as the damages incurred by plaintiff. We direct the plaintiff to amend the figures as to values found in his plaint as, advised, but subject to the whole being consistent in all its parts and subject also to the amendment being in accordance with the rule laid down in Section 7, Clause 4, of the Court Fees Act as pointed above.

2. Time allowed is two weeks.

3. If, on the amendment, the value of the consequential relief (or the total value of the consequential reliefs) is less than Rs. 2,500, the plaint will be returned to be presented for presentation to the proper Court, plaintiff paying all costs thrown away up to the present.

4. If it is over Rs. 2,500 the order of the loner Court will be set aside and the case will be remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal, plaintiff, however, paying the defendant's costs in this Court. Costs in the lower Court will abide.


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