Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 3 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Godavarty Sundaramma vs Godavarty Mangamma on 15 November, 1916
2. The point was taken in the lower Court but the Munsif rejected it, holding that for purposes of valuation the suit fell under Section 7, Clause 5(a), of the Court Fees Act. In Madras, in the absence of rules under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, which says the value for Court-fees and for jurisdiction is the same, is in force as, under Section 6 of the Suits Valuation Act, Section 14 gets repealed only on the rules under Section 3 taking effect. It is, therefore, necessary to decide under what part of Section 7, Clause 5, this suit falls. It seems to me quite clear that it really falls under Clause (d) and not under Clause (a), See Godavartny Sudaramma v. Godavarthy Mangammo 47 Ind. Cas. 543 : 34 M.L.J. 558 : 8 L.W. 88. It seems come to be, therefore, desirable that there should be a finding on one question what the market value of the suit property is, before disposing of this petition.
Govinda Menon vs Karunakara Menon And Ors. on 6 April, 1900
In Govinda Menon v. Karunakara Menon 24 M. 43 it was held that in cases of overvaluation or under-valuation the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the disposal of the suit has been prejudicially affected.
1