M. KALLIANIKUTTI AMMA ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER CREDITORS OF P.K. MANAVEDAN ALIAS ANUJAN RAJA AVL. Vs. PUTHIYA VEETTIL KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA AND P.K. THEKKEKETTU TAVAZHIYIL MANAVEDAN ALIAS ANUJAN RAJA AVL.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point is a short one and arises out of a question raised about the proper court -fee to be payable by the plaintiff who is the petitioner.

(2.) THE plaintiff obtained a decree against the second defendant for a considerable sum of money and in execution attempted to attach certain properties. The first defendant, the wife of the second defendant, filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, objecting on the ground that the said properties had been assigned to her by her husband in 1939 and that she was in possession thereof. The Court by order dated 24th June, 1944, upheld her claim and referred the plaintiff -decree -holder to a regular suit under Order 21, Rule 63.

(3.) I think this petition should be allowed and I hold that the appropriate Article is Article 17(i) and that the fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The additional fee will be returned. As I have said it is not clear at whose instance this court -fee point was taken, and so I do not in the circumstances make any order as to costs.