High CourtsDivision Bench(1934) 11 MAD CK 0027

Ponnuswami Nadar and Another vs The Secretary of State for India in Council

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 November 1934 · Citation: 159 Ind. Cas. 454 : (1935) 41 LW 702 : (1935) 68 MLJ 327

HON’BLE JUDGES
Venkatasubba, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 330 words

Venkatasubba, J.—The serious contest is in regard to the Court-fee payable on the amount covered by the land acquisition award. The

plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner of Annaswami Nadar, the last Male-holder, has filed the present suit. Annaswami Nadar''s widow

mortgaged certain items and eventually the interest of the mortgagees vested in one Danda-yudapani. In certain land acquisition proceedings, some

portions of the mortgaged items were acquired and the sum represents the amount paid in respect of these portions. The money is now in Court

and stands to the credit of the last male-holder. The question is, what is the proper relief that the plaintiff must pray for in regard to this amount?

The plaintiff says he is entitled to ask for a declaration plus consequential relief. He says that he can claim an injunction restraining the defendants

from applying for the payment of the sum and the consequential ielief he has accordingly prayed for in an injunction. In my opinion there is no need

to ask for an injunction. It is not by the defendants'' application that the plaintiff is prejudiced but by the payment by Court. That being so, the

additional relief for the issue of an injunction is both unnecessary and superfluous. The proper relief therefore that should be prayed for, is one for

declaration alone. The Court-fee that is leviable is Rs. 100 under Article 17A(1) of the Second Schedule of the Court-Fees Act. The amount

covered by the award being in the possession of the Court, it is conceded that no prayer for possession is necessary.

2.

The only other question that has been raised is in regard to items 23, 24 and 25 in the possession of defendants 1, 13 and 14. Mr. P.V.

Rajamannar for the Government Pleader concedes that the Court-fee paid in respect of the relief pertaining to these items is correct.

3.

This is my order on the Civil Revision Petition and I make no order as to costs.