IN RE: D. RAJAMANNAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was referred by one of us to a Bench of two Judges in view of the importance of the question raised. The facts are fully stated In the order of reference and it is not necessary to restate them in detail.

(2.) O S. No. 45 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor was instituted by two of the daughter's sons of one Chenchiah as presumptive reversioners to his estate for a declaration that the compromise decree In O. S. No. 10 of 1944 is not binding on the reversioners and for the appointment of a receiver to the estate of late Chenchiah to manage his properties and to prevent waste. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The Master held that Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Suits Valuation Act and Article 1 of Sch. I, Court -fees Act applied to the first relief and' that court -fee should be paid 'ad valorem' on the value of the property i.e., the subject -matter of the decree. A Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar C.J. and Viswanatha Sastri J. held in - - 'Narasamma v. : AIR1951Mad793 (A), that Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Suits Valuation Act would apply to such a case. The learned Judges observed at page 795:

(3.) ARTICLE 17 -A of Schedule II, Court -fees Act: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_41_LAWS(MAD)3_1953.htm</FRM>