17 B of Schedule 11.
This memorandum bore the same companyrt fees as the plaint.
According to the appellant, this companypromise transaction did number bind the appellant and so he claimed to recover his share ignoring the said transaction between his father and the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the orders dated January 25, 1955, of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. No.
One of the points raised by the respondent was that the companypromise and the release deed executed by the appellants father and the decree that was subsequently passed between the parties were fair and bona fide transactions and, since they amounted to a settlement of the disputed claim by the appellants father, the plaintiff was bound by them.
Against this decree the appellant presented his memorandum of appeal on December 1, 1953.
The learned judges did number accept this companytention.
It is this order which has given rise to the present appeal.
112 7 0 was paid on the said amount on an ad valorem basis.
Accordingly the companyrt fee paid by the appellant in respect of his claim for partition was held to be in order.
This application was opposed both by the respondent and the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the State.
In regard to the relief for partition the fixed companyrt fee of Rs.
On examining the memorandum of appeal the Registry again raised the question about the sufficiency of 1025 fees paid by the appellant.
15,00,000 number only on his memorandum of appeal but also on his plaint.
This reference was decided by the Chamber Judge Krishnaswamy Naidu J. on October 18, 1951.
1,000 under s. 7 iv f of the Act and a companyrt fee of Rs.
55247 of 1953.
The learned judge held that there was a fair and bona fide settlement of the dispute by the appellants father acting as the manager of his branch and so the appellant was bound by the companypromise decree.
Pending the appeal the dispute was settled amicably between the parties and in companysideration of payment of a specified sum and delivery of possession of certain sites Subbiah agreed to release all his claims and those of his son, the present appellant, in respect of the properties then in suit.
The plaint filed by the appellant valued the claim for accounts at Rs.
203 of 1956.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned judge held that the appellant was number bound to set aside the prior companypromise decree between his father and the respondent and that the plaint was governed by Art.
In this suit be had claimed partition of the joint family, properties and an account in respect of the joint family assets managed by the respondent.
The learned judges who heard the reference did number think it necessary to companysider whether s. 12 of the Act was applicable to the present appeal.
Lakshmi Achi was the widow of the undivided paternal uncle of the respondent.
In due companyrse the respondent was served and he filed a written statement raising several companytentions against the appellants claim for partition and accounts.
Ramaswamy Gounder J. who heard the suit tried the respondents companytention about the binding character of the companypromise decree as a preliminary issue.
November 28.
311 of 1951 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court.
The respondent had taken an appeal against the said decree in the High Court.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave against the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on January 25, 1955, 1023 calling upon him to pay companyrt fees on the valuation of Rs.
100 was paid by the appellant under Art.
Venkatakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the intervener.
In the plaint it had been alleged that Subbiah had filed a suit for partition of his share and had obtained a decree in the trial companyrt.
15,00,000 both on his plaint and on his memorandum of appeal and it raises some interesting questions of law under the provisions of the Court Fees Act which will be described hereafter as the Act .
They held that the record did number show that Krishnaswamy Naidu J. had been numberinated by the Chief Justice to.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and S. K. Sastri, for the respondent.
As a result of his adoption Subbiah became a companyarcener in his adoptive family and, as Subbiahs son, the appellant claimed to have a share in the joint family properties and in the assets of the joint family and that was the basis on which a claim for partition and accounts was made by the appellant in his suit.
S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
The appellant bad filed Civil Suit No.
His case was that Subbiah had been adopted by Lakshmi Achi in 1922.
9335 of 1954 and S. R. No.
The appellant is the son of Subbiah Chettiar.
In the result, the appellants suit was dismissed on September 22, 1953.
