Supreme court constitution bench judgement regarding court fee for partition suit
Citation
CDJ 1957 SC 010
S.Ram Ar.S.Sp.Sathappa Chettiar vs S.Ram.Ar.Rm.Ramanathan Chettiar
Head note
Court-fees Act - Section 5 - Court fees - Appellant challenged order passed by Division Bench of High Court, calling upon him to pay court-fees on valuation of prescribed amount both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal and it raises some interesting questions of law under provisions of act -
Court held - Court have already indicated S. 8 of Act postulates that Plaintiff should first value his claim for purpose of court-fee and it provides for determination of value for jurisdiction on basis of such claim - High Court were in error in holding that valuation for jurisdiction showed in plaint should be taken to be valuation for payment of court-fees on plaint as well as memorandum of appeal - In view of their prior decision that present case fell under S. 7 (iv) (b), they should have allowed Appellant to amend his valuation for payment of court-fee not only on memorandum of appeal but also on plaint - Court set aside order under appeal and direct that Plaintiff should be allowed to state amount of prescribed amount at which he values relief sought by him for purpose of S. 7 (iv) (b) of Act - Appellant has orally requested us to give him liberty to make appropriate amendment in his plaint and Court have granted his request - Appellant directed to pay additional court-fees on his plaint on basis of valuation of prescribed amount within two months from today - Appeal allowed.
(Paras:16, 17, 18)
Case Referred:
(A) AIR 1949 Lah 116 (V 36):Pak LR (1949) Lah 123 (FB)
Comparative Citations:
1958 AIR(SC) 245, 1958 (1) SCJ 407, 1958 SCR 1024,
(Constitution Bench)
Court held - Court have already indicated S. 8 of Act postulates that Plaintiff should first value his claim for purpose of court-fee and it provides for determination of value for jurisdiction on basis of such claim - High Court were in error in holding that valuation for jurisdiction showed in plaint should be taken to be valuation for payment of court-fees on plaint as well as memorandum of appeal - In view of their prior decision that present case fell under S. 7 (iv) (b), they should have allowed Appellant to amend his valuation for payment of court-fee not only on memorandum of appeal but also on plaint - Court set aside order under appeal and direct that Plaintiff should be allowed to state amount of prescribed amount at which he values relief sought by him for purpose of S. 7 (iv) (b) of Act - Appellant has orally requested us to give him liberty to make appropriate amendment in his plaint and Court have granted his request - Appellant directed to pay additional court-fees on his plaint on basis of valuation of prescribed amount within two months from today - Appeal allowed.
(Paras:16, 17, 18)
Case Referred:
(A) AIR 1949 Lah 116 (V 36):Pak LR (1949) Lah 123 (FB)
Comparative Citations:
1958 AIR(SC) 245, 1958 (1) SCJ 407, 1958 SCR 1024,
(Constitution Bench)
Comments
Post a Comment