Skip to content


Dr. Arthur Nathanial and anr. Vs. Dr. R.P. Nathanial - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1962)2MLJ420
AppellantDr. Arthur Nathanial and anr.
RespondentDr. R.P. Nathanial
Excerpt:
- .....holding that the suit had been properly valued under section 25(d) of the madras court fees and suits valuation act of 1955. the defendant is the petitioner. the respondent instituted a suit for a declaration of his right to the hospital and dispensary run under the name and style of ' the popular pharmacy and nursing home ' and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the hospital and practice therein or using the medicines and setting up a rival practice to his detriment. the petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. it is admitted that the premises of the pharmacy which is situate in no. 29, filter bed road, vellore town-does not belong to either of the parties. the right claimed in the plaint is therefore an.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from the finding of the District Munsif of Vellore in O.S. No. 297 of 1959 holding that the suit had been properly valued under Section 25(d) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent instituted a suit for a declaration of his right to the hospital and dispensary run under the name and style of ' The Popular Pharmacy and Nursing Home ' and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the hospital and practice therein or using the medicines and setting up a rival practice to his detriment. The petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. It is admitted that the premises of the pharmacy which is situate in No. 29, Filter Bed Road, Vellore Town-does not belong to either of the parties. The right claimed in the plaint is therefore an intangible one relating to the pharmacy and nursing home, i.e., the business or profession carried on by the petitioner. It is evident that Section 25(a) of the Court Fees Act cannot apply to the case as it relates to tangible property. Clause (d) of that section will govern the case whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not. The learned District Munsif has held that it is only the later clause that will apply and I am of opinion that is correct.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.


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