Fulchand Vs. Bai Ichha

court fees act vii of' 1870, section 11 - execution of part of decree--payment of full amount of court fees not necessary for such part execution--construction. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. .....profits. the language of section 17, which deals with multifarious suits, shows that, for the purposes of the stamp revenue, such suits are deemed to be a collection of distinct suits relating to the several causes of action combined in them. and we think that in applying section 11 to such suits, we ought, in order to give an harmonious construction to the act as a whole, to construe the term 'suit in that section as confined to that part of the suit in question which relates to mesne profits. strictly speaking, a suit on several causes of. action, including mesne profits, is not a suit for mesne profits,) which, according to its ordinary and more obvious meaning, would be understood as one exclusively for mesne profits. moreover, as the act is a fiscal act, it is to be construed in favour of the subject. and any other view of section 11 would certainly be a harsh one, and not to be accepted in the absence of a very clear expression of such intention on the part of the legislature. the decision in in re manohar g. tambekar i.l.r.,4 bom., 26 on the analogous question raised by article 5 of schedule i proceeds on the same view of the act.2. we must, therefore, discharge the order of the subordinate judge and as counsel for the defendant admits that he has no objection to urge, on the merits, to the execution of the decree, order that the documents lodged in court be delivered to the plaintiff, and that possession be given to him of the house mentioned in the darkhast