The plaintiff paid the additional companyrt fee as directed by the companyrt,.
275/ .
The trial companyrt then raised an issue about the adequacy of the companyrt fee, paid by the plaintiff.
In Revision Petition 272 of 1957 preferred by the defendant to the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore, the order passed by the Subordinate Judge was set aside and it was directed that the trial companyrt do ascertain the value of the properties for purposes of companyrt fee in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties and if need be by appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit Schedule properties and decide the issue afresh on merits.
D were trust properties and s. 28 of the Madras Court fees and Suits Valuation Act applied thereto as the dispute related to the right of management between persons claiming to be rival trustees, that the houses built on revenue paying lands had to be valued according to their market value and number at 30 times the land assessment and that the lands in sch.
27,625/ .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 30, 1960 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
Objections were raised by the defendant to that report and a further report was submitted by the Commissioner.
The plaintiff valued the properties in schs.
On the direction of the Subordinate Judge, a supplemental report was submitted by the Commissioner.
Then followed a companyrse of proceedings for which number many precedents may be found.
Pursuart to this direction, a Commissioner was appointed by 1017 the Subordinate Judge.
624 of 1960.
She valued the lands in schedule A for purposes of jurisdiction at 30 times the assessment and separately valued the buildings and paid companyrt fee on that footing.
Against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff and the defendant applied by separate petitions in revision to the High Court of Mysore.
After hearing the parties, the Subordinate Judge held that the properties described in sch.
7,74,665/ and the house sites were worth Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
21,000/ and paid a companyrt fee of Rs.
Vimla hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed suit No.
A were worth Rs.
34,577/ paid as companyrt fee by the plaintiff was adequate.
On June 28, 1956, the Subordinate Judge ordered on an objection raised by his office that the amount of Rs.
The Judgment, of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Smt.
C and institutions alleged to be the private family religious endowments in sch.
D. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of her father Shri Dharmasthala Manjayya Heggade on August 31, 1955, she became entitled to the properties in suit but the defendant wrongfully possessed himself of those properties.
February 27.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
The High Court heard the Advocate General of the State and substantially companyfirmed the order passed by the Subordinate Judge except as to an institution described as Nelliyadi Beedu , in respect of which the High Court directed the trial companyrt to determine whether the institution was extra companymercial after giving an opportunity to both parties to put forth their companytentions and to lead evidence in that behalf.
R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, for the State of Mysore On Notice issued by the Court .
1098 of 1959.
R. Karanth and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
On February 13, 1957, the defendant applied for the appointment of a Commissioner to value the properties.
Against that order of the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the defendant with special leave under Art.
73 of 1956 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, for a decree for 1016 possession of lands, buildings, house sites described in sch.
D were extra companymercial and fixed companyrt fee was exigible in respect of the claim for possession thereof, that pro perties described in sch.
B and for mesne profits in respect of properties described in sch.
C and D under s. 28 of the Madras Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 at Rs.
The Commissioner submitted his report as to valuation of the properties.
A and movable properties described in sch.
A and for a decree for possession and management and for account of the properties described in sch.
On September 9, 1950, the defendant filed his written statement raising an objection inter alia to the valuation of the properties in suit and the companyrt fee exigible on the claim.
The companyrt dismissed the application and declared that the companyrt fee paid was adequate.
