Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

(kommuru) Venkata Rao v. (korella) Sesharattama

(kommuru) Venkata Rao v. (korella) Sesharattama

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

| 17-08-1934

Ramesam, J.I do not agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and the court-fee examiner. This suit is for a declaration that the person re-ally interested in the promissory notes is the plaintiff and not the defendant though they stand in the defendants name and for recovery of the notes but not for the recovery of the money due [on the notes. The makers of the notes are parties so that the finding may be binding on them also. Section 7, Clause 4 (a), Court-fees Act, is the clause applicable and not Clause 3 as the Subordinate -Judge seems to think.

2. u/s 7, Clause 4(a), Court-fees Act, the plaintiff has not got to pay court-fees on the value of the notes. The value of the notes is not the money due on the notes. Their value is only evidentiary. The plaintiff has got to state the value at which he values the relief sought. He has stated it to be Rs. 500. I set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and find that the plaintiff has not to pay additional court-fees. I do not see that I should make the respondent liable for the costs. I am not able to see that I can make any other person liable for costs. There will be no order as to costs (in this petition).

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE RAMESAM, J
Eq Citations
  • AIR 1934 MAD 730
  • LQ/MadHC/1934/222
Head Note

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 35 — Costs — Award of costs — When proper — Court-fees Act, 1870, S. 7, Cl. 4(a) and S. 3