Madras High Court
Asumilli Veeraraghavalu vs Asumilli Sreeramulu And Ors. on 17 November, 1927
Equivalent citations: 112IND. CAS.96
JUDGMENT
1. It has been held in a long series of cases beginning with Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19 see also Putievu Kamraju v. Chunduri Gunnayya 74 Ind. Cas. 1003 : (1923) M.W.N. 756 : 45 M.L.J. 240 : 18 L.W. 233 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 322 that a minor has not got to set aside the transaction by a guardian in suing to recover the property. He can ignore the transaction and merely pray for possession. That being so, he does not seek cancellation of the instrument. In this respect, his position is different from that of an adult executing the document himself as pointed out in Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19.
2. Therefore, Clause iv(a) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act does not apply. We do not agree with the decision in Alagar Iyengar v. Srinivasa Iyengar 91 Ind. Cas. 709 : (1925) M.W.N. 777 : 22 L.W. 515 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1248 : 50 M.L.J. 406.
3. In such cases it is proper that the plaintiff should not add unnecessary prayers to confuse the Court and himself. When such prayers are unnecessary it is best to expunge them. In the present case the plaintiff is willing to expunge the words in prayer Unni v. Kunchi Amma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 19 from the words "setting aside". If he does so, the Court-fees paid by him is enough. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.