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.

In Re: Oruganti Appa Rao

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 29, 1951
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780772

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Appeal No. 315 of 1950
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

- - I am satisfied that though there are our mortgages, the transaction was intended and was really a single transaction. In these circumstances, this is an exceptional case where it ought to be held on the facts that there is only me subject and not distinct subjects within the meaning of Section 17 of the Court-...

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 17

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Oruganti Appa Rao

Advocate Y. Suryanarayana and ;Y. Suryanarayana, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 17
Cases Referred
Limited v. A. S. Krishna Aiyar
Reported In
AIR1952Mad53; (1951)2MLJ86

Excerpt

- - i am satisfied that though there are our mortgages, the transaction was intended and was really a single transaction. in these circumstances, this is an exceptional case where it ought to be held on the facts that there is only me subject and not distinct subjects within the meaning of section 17 of the court-fees act......mortgages must be regarded as four distinct subjects within the meaning of section 17 of the court-fees act, and even in the appeal the court-fee ought to be paid on that basis. the matter has now been posted before me.2. the decision in 'poliachi town bank, limited v. a. s. krishna aiyar' 41 m.l.w. 327 is relied on as the authority in favour of the enhanced court-fee being payable. this is a case which related to a suit by a mortgagee for sale, for recovery of amounts due under the mortgages. the present is a case of redemption of mortgage and whether this makes a difference or not, it is not necessary to consider the case in the special circumstances of this case. i am satisfied that though there are our mortgages, the transaction was intended and was really a single transaction. they are all of the same date, the property mortgaged is the same property, the mortgagors are all common and the mortgagee also is the same bank. in these circumstances, this is an exceptional case where it ought to be held on the facts that there is only me subject and not distinct subjects within the meaning of section 17 of the court-fees act.3. the court-fee paid is sufficient and no furtheir court-fee is payable.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Panchapagesa Sastri, J.

1. This matter has been posted before me for orders with reference to additional Court-fee now claimed by the office. The suit was for redemption of four usufructuary mortgages. The mortgages were all executed on the same day, by the same set of mortgagors, in favour of the same mortgagee. They purport to be anomalous (usufructuary) mortgages of the year 1886 for Rs. 8,500, Rs. 2,000, Rs. 2,600 and Rs. 1,500. In the lower Court the Court-fee was made up of the aggregate Court-fee as on four distinct subjects. In the High Court, however, the learned counsel for the appellant totalled up all the amounts due under the four mortgages and paid 'ad valorem' Court-fee on that basis of the total figure. The office had no objection to it in the first instance and the appeal was registered and numbered as A. S. No. 315 of 1950. Sometime later, the office put up a note that the four mortgages must be regarded as four distinct subjects within the meaning of Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, and even in the appeal the Court-fee ought to be paid on that basis. The matter has now been posted before me.

2. The decision in 'Poliachi Town Bank, Limited v. A. S. Krishna Aiyar' 41 M.L.W. 327 is relied on as the authority in favour of the enhanced Court-fee being payable. This is a case which related to a suit by a mortgagee for sale, for recovery of amounts due under the mortgages. The present is a case of redemption of mortgage and whether this makes a difference or not, it is not necessary to consider the case in the special circumstances of this case. I am satisfied that though there are our mortgages, the transaction was intended and was really a single transaction. They are all of the same date, the property mortgaged is the same property, the mortgagors are all common and the mortgagee also is the same bank. In these circumstances, this is an exceptional case where it ought to be held on the facts that there is only me subject and not distinct subjects within the meaning of Section 17 of the Court-fees Act.

3. The Court-fee paid is sufficient and no furtheir Court-fee is payable.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial