NEELAMBAL Vs. GNANASELVAM THAVAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 17. 7. 1995, in I. A. No. 367 of 1995 in O s. No. 231 of 1991, whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge overruling the objection of the petitioners (defendants 2 and 3 in the suit), came to the conclusion that the court-fee paid under section 37 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as'the act') is leg al, proper and sufficient.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decisions in Ramaswami Aiyangar v. Rangachariar (1940 (1) MLJ. 32), Kumarasami, s. K. and 3 others v. S. R. Somasundaram and 2 others (1994 2 LW 646); Kasi viswanathan v. Manickam Chettiar (77 L. W. 687); and Vembu Ammal v. Swaminathan (1986 I MLJ 105), vehemently contended that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and cannot be sustained, and that the Court below ought to have, according to the learned counsel, sustained the objection and held that the Court fee on the plaint in question ought to have been paid under section 37 (1) of the Act and that, therefore, the suit cannot be said to have been properly valued and stamped for the purpose of the court-fee.

(3.) FOR all the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and shall stand dismissed. The conclusions rendered by the trial court as well as by this Court in this revision petition shall have no impact on the ultimate disposal of the claim made in the suit on merits. .