Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.50 seconds)The Court-fees Act, 1870
Kolachala Kutumba Sastri vs Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma And ... on 3 March, 1939
31. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in
Balireddi v. Khatipulal Sab (supra), which was approved by the Full
Bench of that Court in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma (supra) turned
primarily on the interpretation of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fee Act as
3
amended by Madras Act which refers to the value of the property simpliciter
and the Court interpreted the same as market value. Neither the learned
Single Judge nor the Full Bench were called upon to interpret a provision
like Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio of those judgments cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of interpreting Section 40 of the Act.
Section 4 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act 1961
P.K. Vasudeva Rao vs K.C. Hari Menon And Anr. on 22 September, 1981
The judgments of the Division
Benches of Kerala High Court in Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan
Parvathy (supra), P.K. Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (supra) and
Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai (supra) and of the learned Single
Judges in Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai (supra) and Uma
Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and others (supra) also do
3
not lay down correct law because the High Court did not appreciate that the
legislature has designedly used different language in Section 40 of the Act
and the term `market value' has not been used therein. The same is true of
the judgments of the learned Single Judges of Mysore and Rajasthan High
Courts noticed hereinabove.
Allam Venkateswara Reddy vs Golla Venkatanarayana And Ors. on 17 July, 1974
In view of our analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, it must be
held that the judgments of the Division Bench of Madras High Court and of
the learned Single Judges in Venkata Narasimha Raju v. Chandrayya
(supra), Navaraja v. Kaliappa Gounder (supra), Arunachalathammal v.
Sudalaimuthu Pillai (supra) and Andalammal v. B. Kanniah (supra) as
also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Allam Venkateswara Reddy v. Golla Venkatanarayana (supra) lay
down correct law. In the first of these cases, the Division Bench of Madras
High Court rightly observed that when there is a special rule in the Act for
valuing the property for the purpose of court fee, that method of valuation
must be adopted in preference to any other method and, as mentioned above,
Section 40 of the Act certainly contains a special rule for valuing the
property for the purpose of court fee and we do not see any reason why the
expression `value of the property' used in Section 40(1) should be
substituted with the expression `market value of the property'.
Jonnavaram Balireddi vs Khatipulal Sab Alias Abdul Satar And ... on 15 April, 1935
31. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in
Balireddi v. Khatipulal Sab (supra), which was approved by the Full
Bench of that Court in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma (supra) turned
primarily on the interpretation of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fee Act as
3
amended by Madras Act which refers to the value of the property simpliciter
and the Court interpreted the same as market value. Neither the learned
Single Judge nor the Full Bench were called upon to interpret a provision
like Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio of those judgments cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of interpreting Section 40 of the Act.
Sengoda Nadar vs Doraiswami Gounder And Ors. on 14 August, 1970
In
Sengoda Nadar v. Doraiswami Gounder and others (supra) and S.
Krishna Nair and another v. N. Rugmoni Amma (supra), the other
learned Single Judges did not correctly appreciate the ratio of the judgment
of the coordinate Bench in Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai
(supra) and distinguished the same without assigning cogent reasons. We
may also observe that if the learned Single Judges felt that the view
expressed by the co-ordinate Bench was not correct, they ought to have
referred the matter to the larger Bench.