Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.05 seconds)Section 2 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Suits Valuation Act, 1887
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Vasu vs Chakki Mani on 3 July, 1961
This decision was correctly
interpreted by the Kerala High Court in Vasu v. Chakki
Mani(2)where it was pointed out that no revision will lie
against the decision on the question of adequacy of court-
fee at the instance of the defendant...... unless the
question of court fee, involves also the question of
jurisdiction of the court. In the present case the plaint
was rejected under Order 7, Rule 1 1 of the C.P.C. Such an
order amounts to a decree under section 2(2) and there is a
right of appeal open to the plaintiff. Furthermore, in a
case in which this Court has granted special leave the
question whether an appeal lies or not does not arise. Even
otherwise a second appeal would lie under section 100 of the
C.P.C. on the ground that the decision of the 1st Appellate
Court on the interpretation of s. 7(iv) (c) is a question of
law. There is thus no merit in the preliminary objection.
As regards the main question that arises for decision it
appears to us that while the court-fee payable on a plaint
is certainly to be decided on the basis of the allegations
and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the
plaintiff's suit will have to fail for failure to ask for
consequential relief is of no concern to the court at that
stage the court in deciding the question of court-fee should
look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the
substantive relief that is asked for Mere astuteness in
drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way
of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked
for. In this case the relief asked for is on the basis that
the property in dispute is a joint Hindu family property and
there was no legal necessity
(1) A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 1299.
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Faqir Chand vs Harnam Kaur & Anr on 5 August, 1966
to execute the mortgage. It is now well settled that under
Hindu Law if the manager of a joint family is the father and
the other members are the sons the father may by incurring a
debt so long as it is not for an immoral purpose, lay the
joint family estate open to be taken in execution
proceedings upon a decree for the payment of the debt not
only where it is an unsecured debt and a simple money decree
for the debt but also to a mortgage debt which the father is
personally liable to pay and to a decree for the recovery of
the mortgage debt by the sale of the property even where the
mortgage is not for legal necessity or for payment of
antecedent debt (Faqir Chand v. Harnam Kaur(1).
Bishan Sarup vs Musa Mal And Ors. on 17 April, 1935
As regards the decision of the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bishan Sarup v. Musa
Mal(4) there is nothing to show whether the alienation was
made by the manager of a joint Hindu family and therefore
the decision is not in point.