Skip to content


(Kavalappara) Mooppil Nair and anr. Vs. Ammalu Amma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad667; 95Ind.Cas.26
Appellant(Kavalappara) Mooppil Nair and anr.
RespondentAmmalu Amma and ors.
Cases ReferredZamorin of Calicut v. Narayana
Excerpt:
- .....held by this court ever since zamorin of calicut v. narayana [1882] 5 mad. 284 that in suits to redeem a kanom mortgage the court-fee payable by the plaintiff should be in accordance with provisions of section 9, clause(7) of the court fees act. there is no question that that fee has been correctly paid by the plaintiff in this case. the fact that he refers to his title in the plaint does not make it obligatory on him to pay any additional court-fee. the question litigated is his right to redeem.2. the real question for decision has not been considered by the lower courts. as a matter of fact in obedience to the order of the court the plaintiff has paid some amount by way of additional court fee.3. as he has paid the court fee required by section 7, clause9, the lower court's order.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This petition raises the question as regards the Court-fee that should be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was one for redemption of a kanom dated 3rd November 1899: see paragraph 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the cause of action arose since 4-11-1911 that is, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of kanom. It has been held by this Court ever since Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana [1882] 5 Mad. 284 that in suits to redeem a kanom mortgage the Court-fee payable by the plaintiff should be in accordance with provisions of Section 9, Clause(7) of the Court Fees Act. There is no question that that fee has been correctly paid by the plaintiff in this case. The fact that he refers to his title in the plaint does not make it obligatory on him to pay any additional Court-fee. The question litigated is his right to redeem.

2. The real question for decision has not been considered by the lower Courts. As a matter of fact in obedience to the order of the Court the plaintiff has paid some amount by way of additional Court fee.

3. As he has paid the Court fee required by Section 7, Clause9, the lower Court's order asking him to pay additional Court-fee should be set aside.

4. The findings on Issues 7 and 8 are therefore set aside. The District Munsif is directed to receive the plaint and proceed with the case. Costs will abide the result.


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