Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Brij Raj Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderseth, j.1. this is a revision by the chief inspector of stamps under section 6b, court fees act. a suit was brought for maintenance by a widow (sic) under forma pauperis and no court-fee was paid. the defendant husband appealed to the lower appellate court. he paid court-fee on the amount payable for one year to the plaintiff in accordance with the proviso to section 7(ii)(a). the stamp authorities objected to this amount of court fee and claimed that court, fee was payable upon ten times that amount, their contention being that the proviso was not applicable when the appeal was filed by a male person. there is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Seth, J.

1. This is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Court Fees Act. A suit was brought for maintenance by a widow (sic) under forma pauperis and no court-fee was paid. The defendant husband appealed to the lower appellate Court. He paid court-fee on the amount payable for one year to the plaintiff in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(ii)(a). The Stamp authorities objected to this amount of court fee and claimed that court, fee was payable upon ten times that amount, their contention being that the proviso was not applicable when the appeal was filed by a male person. There is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the suit in such cases. There is, however, Section 2(iv) according to which 'suit' includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit. Applying the aforesaid definition of suit, if we substitute 'first appeal from a decree' where the word suit occurs in the proviso the proviso would read as follows;

' Provided that in a first appeal from a decree in a suit for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be an amount claimed to be payable for one year.'

2. Properly interpreted the proviso in such a case would mean an appeal arising out of a suit instituted for maintenance by a female or a minor. The appeal before the lower appellate Court in this case was such an appeal and, therefore, the value of the subject-matter of the appeal should be deemed to be the amount payable for one year. This is what the Court below has held. In my judgment the decision of the Court below is correct. This application in revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs because no one appears for the opposite party.