Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Devaki, Minor And Ors. vs Rajagopal Naidu on 14 February, 1956 cites

Sundarathammal And Anr. vs Paramaswami Asari And Ors. on 23 August, 1933

526, following the test laid down in Sundarathammal v. Paramaswami Asari (1933) 65 M.L.J. 781, by Pakenham Walsh, J. I am inclined to agree with the rulings in these decisions and hold that it cannot be held in this case that the plaintiffs' petitioners have sufficient means to pay the Court-fee due to the Government. The order of the learned City Civil Judge is therefore set aside and the petitioners will be granted leave to file the suit in forma pauperis. The costs of this Civil Revision Petition will be costs in the cause.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Manicka Chetty vs Narayanasami Naidu And Ors. on 24 March, 1933

5. Such being the case, under the latter part of the Explanation to Rule I of Order 33, the subject-matter of the suit, viz., the equity of redemption which may be worth Rs. 950, will have to be excluded. There is no meaning in saying that when the mortgagor approaches the Court to redeem the property from the mortgagee he should go in for a sale or otherwise encumber the equity of redemption itself to raise the necessary funds to pay the Court-fee due to the Government. If he were to sell the equity of redemption, it is not necessary for him to go to a Court of law for: redeeming the mortgage. The mortgage could as well be redeemed by other means than by instituting a suit in a Court for redemption. That the subject-matter of the suit should be excluded when the pauperism of the petitioner has to be determined has been held by Cornish, J., in Manicka Chetty v. Narayanasami Naidu (1933) 65 M.L.J. 277.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1