RATNAMMA Vs. KARTHIYANI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of court-fee payable on the appeal memorandum In an unnumbered second appeal from the decree passed by the District Court in A. S. No. 452 of 1969 has come up before us on an order of reference by a Division bench to which the question had been referred by order dated 26th September 1973. The order of reference to the Division Bench was made because the correctness of the observations of Narayana Piliai. J. , in the decision in Ammu brahmaniamma v. Gopalan 1973 Ker L. T. 726 was doubted. That observation is extracted in the order of reference and runs as follows:-

(2.) THE question that was considered by Narayana Pillai. J. , was whether in a plaintiff's appeal from the decree dismissing a suit, court-fee must be paid in relation to the mense profits that had accrued due from the date of suit upto the date of appeal. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of maharashtria v. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha reported in AIR 1964 SC 457 it was held that court-fee need not be paid. The observations we have extracted followed though the question of court-fee ayable on an appeal by a defendant did not arise for consideration before Narayana Pillai, J. The decisions in Chacko Chacko v. Varghese Varghese reported in 1955 Ker LR 168 = (AIR 1955 Trav Co 167) and ulahannan Kurien v. Uthu-ppu Varkey reported in 1955 Ker LT 377 = (AIR 1954 trav Co 174) were referred to and the learned Judge observed that he disagreed with the views expressed therein.

(3.) WHEN a Division Bench heard the question, the attention of the Bench was drawn to another decision of this Court in Muhammed Kassivan Kadija Ummal v. Nanan Sathyadasan reported in 1971 Ker LJ 375 wherein Madhavan Nair. J. , in dealing with a different question altogether observed:--