Skip to content


Dr. R.G. Rajan and anr. Vs. N. Srinivasa Naidu, Trustee of Sri Venkataramanaswami Chatram Charity and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945Mad102
AppellantDr. R.G. Rajan and anr.
RespondentN. Srinivasa Naidu, Trustee of Sri Venkataramanaswami Chatram Charity and ors.
Excerpt:
- - in these circumstances we hold that the application must fail and that what the appellants have already paid is the correct court-fee......question does not fall within the terms of the notification. this is a suit by two plaintiffs who claim to be trustees of certain trust property against the defendants who put forward the same claim. it is possible that a 'suit between trustees' is an expression which might in other circumstances have been applied to such a situation; but it seems to us that in view of the second portion of the notification relating to a suit between a plaintiff who claims to be a trustee and a defendant who is alleged to have ceased to be a trustee, the intention of government was to restrict, the notification to suits in which the status of the defendant as trustee either at the time of the suit or previously is undisputed. here of course the plaintiffs do not concede that the defendants have any.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. This petition relates to Appeal No. 280 of 1943 and is filed by the appellants. The appeal was filed on 9th August 1943 and a court-fee of Rs. 1162-7-0 was paid. It is now contended that in accordance with the terms of a notification published in Government Order No. 5791 dated 17th May 1943, this court-fee is excessive and that all that need have been paid was one-third of the amount. The notification runs:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35, Court-fees Act, 1870, His Excellency the Governor of Madras is hereby pleased to reduce the fee chargeable in any suit for possession or joint possession between trustees, or between a plaintiff who claims to be a trustee and a defendant who is alleged to have ceased to be a trustee, to one-third of what it would be if the suit related to a claim in respect of private property.

2. Court-fee has been paid on the appeal on the footing that the ordinary court-fee payable on a claim in respect of private property was due. The learned Government Header opposes this application and holds that the suit in question does not fall within the terms of the notification. This is a suit by two plaintiffs who claim to be trustees of certain trust property against the defendants who put forward the same claim. It is possible that a 'suit between trustees' is an expression which might in other circumstances have been applied to such a situation; but it seems to us that in view of the second portion of the notification relating to a suit between a plaintiff who claims to be a trustee and a defendant who is alleged to have ceased to be a trustee, the intention of Government was to restrict, the notification to suits in which the status of the defendant as trustee either at the time of the suit or previously is undisputed. Here of course the plaintiffs do not concede that the defendants have any right to be trustees. In these circumstances we hold that the application must fail and that what the appellants have already paid is the correct court-fee. This application is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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