Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kanaran and ors. Vs. Komappan and ors.

Kanaran and ors. vs Komappan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 15, 1890
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779036

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Court Fees Act - Act VII of 1870, Sections 7, 12--Suit to cancel an instrument affecting land--Partial interest of plaintiff in the land--Appeal against an order for payment of additional Court Fees. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kanaran and ors.

Respondent

Komappan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Ajoodhya Pershad v. Gunga Pershad I.L.R.
Reported In
(1891)ILR14Mad169

Excerpt

court fees act - act vii of 1870, sections 7, 12--suit to cancel an instrument affecting land--partial interest of plaintiff in the land--appeal against an order for payment of additional court fees. - 1. in our opinion, the subordinate judge was wrong in valuing the plaint according to the value of the whole tarwad property. it is clear that the plaintiffs will not be gainers to that extent if they obtain a decree.2. it was argued for on behalf of the respondents that section 12 of the court fees act prevented our revising the decision of the subordinate judge, but it has been held by this court that where it is not a mere question of amount or arithmetical calculation the section does not apply--chandu v. kombi i.l.r. 9 mad. 208), ajoodhya pershad v. gunga pershad i.l.r., 6 cal., 249). we reverse the decree and remand the case to be dealt with according to law. appellants must have the costs of this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. In our opinion, the Subordinate Judge was wrong in valuing the plaint according to the value of the whole tarwad property. It is clear that the plaintiffs will not be gainers to that extent if they obtain a decree.

2. It was argued for on behalf of the respondents that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act prevented our revising the decision of the Subordinate Judge, but it has been held by this Court that where it is not a mere question of amount or arithmetical calculation the section does not apply--Chandu v. Kombi I.L.R. 9 Mad. 208), Ajoodhya Pershad v. Gunga Pershad I.L.R., 6 Cal., 249). We reverse the decree and remand the case to be dealt with according to law. Appellants must have the costs of this appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial