Skip to content


Vennal Naidu and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad307; 117Ind.Cas.800
AppellantVennal Naidu and anr.
RespondentOfficial Receiver and ors.
Cases ReferredArunachalam Chetty v. Rangaswamy Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....of the property minus one third of 'the mortgage amount is the value of the subject-matter of the suit or appeal. if he does not submit to them (as in this case) the value of the property without any subtraction is the value of the subject matter of the suit or appeal. i understand that the petitioner before] me (appellant in the lower court) has paid the court-fee as for possession of one-third share of the property without making any deduction. to ask him to pay court-fees on the mortgages is to make him pay twice over.2. but i need not reason out the principle at this stage. the decision in algar ayyangar v. srinivasa ayyangar : air1925mad1248 , has been dissented from by myself and my brother jackson, j., in veeraraghavilu v. sreeramulu : air1928mad816 , i adhere to the view in that.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. The plaintiff does, not want to set aside the mortgages. They may be still binding on the father. The plaintiff wishes to ignore them so far as his share is concerned. If he submits to them, the value of the property minus one third of 'the mortgage amount is the value of the subject-matter of the suit or appeal. If he does not submit to them (as in this case) the value of the property without any subtraction is the value of the subject matter of the suit or appeal. I understand that the petitioner before] me (appellant in the lower Court) has paid the Court-fee as for possession of one-third share of the property without making any deduction. To ask him to pay Court-fees on the mortgages is to make him pay twice over.

2. But I need not reason out the principle at this stage. The decision in Algar Ayyangar v. Srinivasa Ayyangar : AIR1925Mad1248 , has been dissented from by myself and my brother Jackson, J., in Veeraraghavilu v. Sreeramulu : AIR1928Mad816 , I adhere to the view in that decision and I am bound by it. The decision in Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangaswamy Pillai [1915] 38 Mad. 922 is not applicable to this case. The order of the District Judge is set aside and the petitioner will be allowed to proceed with his appeal if he has paid Court-fees as for possession of the properties in respect of which he seeks relief in appeal. The petitioner will have costs of this revision petition from the respondents. There will be no order as to costs in the lower Court. The Official Receiver will pay the costs from the estate.


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