MURLI DHAR Vs. BANSIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Inspector of Stamps pointed out a deficiency in respect of the court fee payable in the trial Court on the plaint. When the Taxing Officer required the appellant to make up the deficiency the appellant objected to the report of the Chief inspector of Stamps. The appeal being triable by a Bench, the Taxing Officer directed that the case be laid before a Bench. That is how the case has come before us.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff. The two defendants impleaded in the suit were his own brothers. It was alleged in the plaint that the parties were originally members of a joint Hindu family which carried on the business of manufacturing sandal-wood oil. it had a factory at Kanauj for extracting that oil. There was a branch factory at Calcutta also. The plaintiff further alleged that when the family was joint he was recognized by all the members as the Managing Proprietor of the business and continued to act as such. Subsequently the family business was converted into a partnership concern and according to the plaintiff in this partnership concern also the plaintiff was recognized and allowed to work as a Managing Partner. As such Managing Partner he was the occupier of the factory and the employer of the persons employed in it for the purposes of the Factories Act. According to him the defendants disputed his status as a Managing Partner and had behind his back passed a resolution on the 23rd of February 1953 Which adversely affected his position as a Managing Partner. This resolution was, according to the plaintiff, null and void. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:

(3.) The claim was valued on the approximate price of the property in dispute at rupees four lacs for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiff paid Rs. 250/- as court-fee for the first relief under Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act. A court fee of Rs. 18/12/- for the second relief was paid under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Act.