M AMIRTHAM Vs. N VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed Suit before the Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar for partition. The Court below returned the Plaint by stating that there is no prayer for final decree, and that the Court-fee was not paid for the second relief i.e., mes ne profits under Section 44(1) of Court-fee Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners represented the Plaint with endorsement referring Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Subbaraj and Others, AIR 1975 Mad 208 : (1975) 1 MLJ 137, and submitted that the Court-fee in respect of future mes ne profits in the Plaint need not be paid.

(3.) On 18.12.2008, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, again returned the Plaint by stating that in the above judgment, there was no prayer for future mes ne (sic) profit, while in this case there is a prayer for future mes ne (sic) profit,