Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing C.P. Vasantarajan And Ors. vs Parvathammani Garu And Ors. on 15 April, 1953

K. Loganthan vs Rajalakshmi And Ors. on 12 February, 2007

4. As seen from the plaint papers, it is seen that originally the suit has been filed on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore after making several returns and representation of the plaint, ultimately by order dated 6.9.2006, returned the plaint with a direction to file the same before proper court holding that since the suit is to be valued on the market value of the suit property viz., under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the Subordinate Judge's Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter the Plaint was presented before the learned Principal District Judge. The learned Principal District also returned the papers as to the maintainability of the suit and also the court fees payable on the said suit. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff placing reliance on the decision of this Court in C.P. Vasantarajan and Ors. v. Rani Parvathammani Garu and Ors. 1953 (II) MLJ 493 represented the papers that the suit is maintainable under Section 73(2) CPC and also stating that only Section 50 of the Court Fees Act applies and not Section 40 of the Act. However, by the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore returned the Plaint holding that the suit is for setting aside the orders pased in E.As in O.S. No. 190 of 1999 and refund of money, Section 40 of the Court Fees Act only attracted in the instant suit and therefore the court fee has to be paid as provided for in Section 40 of the said Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S A Kumar - Full Document
1