Skip to content


Amarta Lal Kumar Vs. Sisir Kumar Basu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in87Ind.Cas.651
AppellantAmarta Lal Kumar
RespondentSisir Kumar Basu and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vii, rule 11, order xliii, rule 1(a) - order directing payment of deficit court-fees, failure to comply with--rejection of plaint--appeal, valuation of--appellate court, duty of. - chakravarti, j.1. this is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of an order made by the district judge of dacca, dated the 15th of june 1921, it appears that the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain immoveable property. he valued his suit for the purpose of court-fees at rs. 60 and paid court-fees ad valorem on that valuation. after the quantity and situation of the land had been ascertained by local investigation, the defendants raised a question that the suit had been undervalued and the court-fee paid was insufficient. the learned subordinate judge enquired into the matter and found that the true value of the land in suit should be assessed at rs. 9,905 and gave the plaintiff an opportunity of paying the deficit court-fees. the.....
Judgment:

Chakravarti, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of an order made by the District Judge of Dacca, dated the 15th of June 1921, It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of certain immoveable property. He valued his suit for the purpose of Court-fees at Rs. 60 and paid Court-fees ad valorem on that valuation. After the quantity and situation of the land had been ascertained by local investigation, the defendants raised a question that the suit had been undervalued and the Court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge enquired into the matter and found that the true value of the land in suit should be assessed at Rs. 9,905 and gave the plaintiff an opportunity of paying the deficit Court-fees. The plaintiff defaulted and the result was that the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11. The plaintiff appealed against that order to the District judge and valued his appeal at the same value as he had put upon the original plaint and questioned the finding of the Subordinate Judge as to the valuation of the suit. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeal in these words. As the memorandum of appeal is insufficiently stamped it is rejected.' It is clear from this order that the District Judge did not go into the question as to the true value of the properties in suit for the purpose' of Court-fees and it is also clear that without coming to a finding upon the question he could not hold that the memorandum was insufficiently stamped.

2. The result is that we set aside the order of the District Judge and send back the case to him for a trial of the question as to what the real value of the property in suit is and what the Court-fees payable' upon that finding should be. The plaintiff, after that question is decided, will be given an opportunity to pay the deficit Court-fees upon that value and then the District' Judge will remand the case to the First Court for trial on the merits after payment of proper Court-fees before that Court.

3. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this appeal. We assess the hearing-fee at two gold mohurs.

Greaves, J.

4. I agree.


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