AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 194 wordsShephard, J.—As I understand the reference, the suit is an ordinary suit for redemption in which, owing to the fact that the mortgagee in
possession has not paid the stipulated rent, the plaintiff asks for an account, in taking which the arrears of rent will be deducted from the mortgage
amount.
In my opinion the Court fee ought in such a case to be computed according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage. In
Konna Panikar v. Karunakara ILR 16 Mad. 328 it is distinctly said that the suit was to redeem the land and to recover arrears of rent. On that
basis the judgment proceeds. Subramanya Bharatengal v. Kunnan Civil Revision Petition No. 387 of 1889 (unreported) seems exactly in point.
I would answer the reference by holding that the fee must be computed on the amount of the mortgage.
Best, J.
The suit is not for redemption and rent, but for redemption on payment of the kanom amount, the arrears of rent due from the kanomdar being
deducted.
I am of opinion that the Court fee payable must be calculated on the kanom amount.