Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Section 7 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Aklemannessa Bibi vs Mahomed Hatem on 7 July, 1904
The first clause of Section 1.1 noted above is satisfied in the present case. The objection was taken in the trial Court. The question, however, still remains whether there had been any case made either in the pleadings or in the evidence as led that there had been any prejudice because of the suit having been tried in the Court of the Munsif. It was held in 'Dinesh Chandra v. Sarnamoyi Debi', 1 C W N 136 and 'Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem', 31 Cal 849 that unless there is proof of the disposal of the suit or appeal having been prejudicially affected on the merits by the under-valuation the defect of jurisdiction, if any, is cured by Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.
Naduvil Edom Karnavan And Manager Kelu ... vs Cheriya Parvathi Nethiyar And Ors. on 30 January, 1923
The same view has been expressed in the cases of 'Kelu Achan v. Parvathi Nethiar', 46 Mad 631 and 'Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain Singh AIR (36) 1949 Pat 278.
Section 1 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
1