High Courts(1891) 07 MAD CK 0010

Puthia Vittil Govinda Nambi and Another vs Puthia Vittil Parameshwara Nambi and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 July 1891 · Citation: (1896) 6 MLJ 548

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

6 paragraphs · 148 words
1.

The suit is of a declaratory nature, and therefore the District judge was wrong in requiring an ad valorem, court fee. The cases cited do not

apply. We observe that the judge dismissed the original suit on 5th March 1890, on the ground that, plaintiff had not paid the ad valorem fee. On

the 13th March, he rejected; the appeal of the 2nd defendant on the ground that the latter had not paid the ad valorem fee on the appeal. Until the

appeal was admitted it was not competent to the judge to pass any order dismissing the original suit.

2.

The 2nd defendant, however has filed no appeal against the order dismissing the appeal, and therefore we cannot make any order in his favor.

No one appears for the respondents. We set aside the order ""dismissing the suit, and restore the decree of the District Munsif.