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.

Dr. Arthur Nathanial and anr. Vs. Dr. R.P. Nathanial

Dr. Arthur Nathanial and anr. vs Dr. R.P. Nathanial

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 05, 1962
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/812197

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
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Arthur Nathanial and anr.

Respondent

Dr. R.P. Nathanial

Legal References

Reported In
(1962)2MLJ420

Excerpt

- orders. ramachandra iyer, c.j.1. this civil revision petition arises from the finding of the district munsif of vellore in o.s. no. 297 of 1959 holding that the suit had been properly valued under section 25(d) of the madras court fees and suits valuation act of 1955. the defendant is the petitioner. the respondent instituted a suit for a declaration of his right to the hospital and dispensary run under the name and style of ' the popular pharmacy and nursing home ' and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the hospital and practice therein or using the medicines and setting up a rival practice to his detriment. the petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. it is admitted that the premises of the pharmacy which is situate in no. 29, filter bed road, vellore town-does not belong to either of the parties. the right claimed in the plaint is therefore an intangible one relating to the pharmacy and nursing home, i.e., the business or profession carried on by the petitioner. it is evident that section 25(a) of the court fees act cannot apply to the case as it relates to tangible property. clause (d) of that section will govern the case whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not. the learned district munsif has held that it is only the later clause that will apply and i am of opinion that is correct.2. this civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from the finding of the District Munsif of Vellore in O.S. No. 297 of 1959 holding that the suit had been properly valued under Section 25(d) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent instituted a suit for a declaration of his right to the hospital and dispensary run under the name and style of ' The Popular Pharmacy and Nursing Home ' and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the hospital and practice therein or using the medicines and setting up a rival practice to his detriment. The petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. It is admitted that the premises of the pharmacy which is situate in No. 29, Filter Bed Road, Vellore Town-does not belong to either of the parties. The right claimed in the plaint is therefore an intangible one relating to the pharmacy and nursing home, i.e., the business or profession carried on by the petitioner. It is evident that Section 25(a) of the Court Fees Act cannot apply to the case as it relates to tangible property. Clause (d) of that section will govern the case whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not. The learned District Munsif has held that it is only the later clause that will apply and I am of opinion that is correct.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial