High CourtsDivision Bench(1944) 12 MAD CK 0017

Satti Mutyalamma and Others vs Vinjamuri Krishnamma

Madras High Court · Decided on 15 December 1944 · Citation: AIR 1945 Mad 351 : (1945) 58 LW 232 : (1945) 1 MLJ 205

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J · Kuppuswami Aiyar, 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

10 paragraphs · 238 words

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The only point urged in these three appeals is about the order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to refund

the court-fees paid on the appeal memoranda in the lower appellate Court on the ground that these are not suitable cases. The learned Judge has

remanded all the three suits for taking fresh evidence and disposal. u/s 13 of the Court-Fees Act, the Court has no discretion in the matter and is

bound to refund the court-fees when a remand is made on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure. u/s 8 of

the General Clauses Act, when any section or enactment is repealed and is re-enacted either with or without modifications, then the reference must

be considered to have been made to the subsequent section that has been enacted. Reading Section 13 by substituting Order 41, Rule 23 for

Section 351. of the Civil. Procedure Code of 1859, which has been repealed the Judge had no discretion and was bound to refund the court-fee

paid on the appeal memoranda. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to refund the court-fees is set aside and there will be instead a

direction for refund of court-fees on the memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court in all the three appeals.

2.

The other point is not pressed and the three appeals to that extent are dismissed without costs.