Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 37 in Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Commerclal Aviation & Travel Company & ... vs Vimal Pannalal on 13 July, 1988
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 01:17:14 pm )
7 C.R.P.(MD)No.2326 OF 2024
''8. Similar provisions were examined by
this Court in Commercial Aviation and Travel
Co. v. Vimla Pannalal [(1988) 3 SCC 423 : AIR 1988
SC 1636] and it was noted as follows : (SCC pp.
427-28, paras 11-12)
“11. In this connection, we may refer to a
five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in S. Rm. Ar.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar vs S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar on 28 November, 1957
In the above decision, this Court took
the view that the conversion of the plaintiff's
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 01:17:14 pm )
9 C.R.P.(MD)No.2326 OF 2024
undivided share in the joint family property into his
separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of
rupees with any precision or definiteness. It is true
that the court did not consider whether the plaintiff
had been given an absolute right or option to place
any valuation whatever on his relief under the
provision of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, but
the difficulty that would be felt by the court in
exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of
the Code of Civil Procedure is that if it is unable to
determine the correct value of the relief, it cannot
direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation. Order 7
Rule 11(b) contemplates correct valuation and not
approximate correct valuation and such correct
valuation of the relief has to be determined by the
court. If the court cannot determine the correct
valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the
plaintiff to correct the valuation and, consequently,
Order 7 Rule 11(b) will not be applicable.”
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jagannath Amin vs Seetharama (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 9 November, 2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 01:17:14 pm )
6 C.R.P.(MD)No.2326 OF 2024
Equally it is not necessary that he should be getting a
share or some income from the property. So long as
his right to a share and the nature of the property as
joint is not disputed the law presumes that he is in
joint possession unless he is excluded from such
possession. Before the plaintiffs could be called upon
to pay court fee under Section 37(1) of the Act on the
ground that they had been excluded from possession,
it is necessary that on a reading of the plaint, there
should be a clear and specific averment in the plaint
that they had been “excluded” from joint possession
to which they are entitled in law. The averments in
the plaint that the plaintiffs could not remain in joint
possession as they were not given any income from
the joint family property would not amount to their
exclusion from possession. We are unable to read into
the plaint a clear and specific admission that the
plaintiffs had been excluded from possession.”
This decision was followed in Jagannath Amin V. Seetharama,
(2007) 1 SCC 694.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sivathanulingam vs Sankaralingam (Died) on 8 January, 2018
7.A learned Judge of this Court in Sivathanulingam V.
Sankaralingam and Others (2020 SCC OnLine Mad 262) had
followed Neelavathi case.
1