KEDAR NATH GUPTA Vs. DULHIN MOTI KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Taxing Officer has made this reference to me as Taxing Judge. The only question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay on their memorandum of appeal in this Court ad valorem Court-fee under Section 7 (iv) (c) on Rs. 19,000, at which they have valued the 'suit and the memorandum of appeal, or have properly paid the fixed Court-fee under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act.

(2.) The following genealogical table of the plaintiffs' family is useful in appreciating the facts of the case: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_470_AIR(PAT)_1961Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) Shortly stated, the plaintiffs' case is that Sheo Prasad and Ganesh Prasad instituted Title Suit No. 41 of 1939/36 of 1942 for partition of the family properties against Lakshmi Prasad, who was defendant No. 1. Kedar, plaintiff No. 1 of the present suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 24 of 1955, was impleaded in that suit as minor plaintiff No. 3 under the guardianship of Ganesh Prasad, and plaintiff No. 2, who is still a minor, was not a party at all. Gulabo Kuer, defendant No. 1 of this suit, was defendant No. 3 in the earlier suit. That suit was decreed; but the Court held, on issue No. 1, as follows: "Defendant No. 3 is in fact married to defendant No. 1 in sagai form and the two defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have been for some time past living together as husband and wife along with plaintiff No. 3. Defendant No. 3, being the grandmother of the minor plaintiff No. 3, is the natural guardian of the aforesaid plaintiff No. 3 since the latter has been for long neglected and virtually abandoned by his grandfather, plaintiff No. 1. From my above findings, it follows conversely that plaintiff No. 3 never lived with, nor is under the guardianship of, plaintiff No. 2, and, as such, the latter cannot sue as his guardian."