MADHAVAN Vs. MUNIAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the limited scope of the controversy involved, the revisions themselves are taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred cross -objections in regular appeals before the lower appellate Court. The cross -objection relate to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the will marked Ex. B -43 . The lower appellate Court had directed payment of court -fees on the cross -objections. Hence these revisions.

(3.) MR . N. Sivamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, brought to my notice the pronouncements in Ram Prasad Kalwar v. : AIR1922All280 and Siva Pershan Moria v. Swarajlakshmi, (1959)2 AW.R.452 has followed the observations of the Full Bench of the Court in Gaddam Chinna Venkatarao v. K. Satyanarayanamurthi, (1943) 2 M.L.J. 3361 :, 943 Mad.698 :, 56 L.W.527, apart from the' observations of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Prasad Kalwar v. : AIR1922All280 . These pronouncements place the legal position on this question beyond any ambiguity. In view of the legal position, these revisions are allowed and I make no order to costs.