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
13 paragraphs · 299 wordsVaradachariar, J.—This is an appeal by Defendants 1 and 2 against a decree which declared the adoption of the second defendant by the
first defendant, invalid. A number of questions were raised and discussed in the Court below; but as the determination of the appeal can be rested
on a very short ground, we have not heard appellant''s learned Counsel on the other points.
[Their Lordships, after confirming the finding of fact of the lower Court on the invalidity of the adoption, proceeded to fix the court-fees thus]
As regards to the court-fee payable upon the suit in the lower Court, we find that the plaintiffs had paid only Rs. 100 by way of court-fee. There
can be little doubt that the value of the properties is more than Rs. 10,000 and that the proper method of valuation is not the method provided for
in Clause (5) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act. On general principles as also according to the decisions in Veeramma v. Butchayya ILR (1926)
50 Mad. 646 : 52 M.L.J. 381, the value for the purposes of jurisdiction must have been fixed with reference to the market value of the properties.
Under Article 17(a)(iii) of the Court-fees Act, a fee of Rs. 500 is payable in all cases where the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is
over Rs. 10,000 (see also Ramaszvami Asari, In re ILR (1928) 52 Mad. 340 : 56 M.L.J. 107.
We accordingly direct the plaintiffs-respondents, u/s 12(ii) of the Court-Fees Act, to pay an additional fee of Rs. 400 before the 1st December,
1934. On such payment they will be entitled to add it to the costs payable to them under the decree in their favour and recover the same from the
appellants.