SUBRAMANIA AYYAR Vs. VRAMA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of East Tanjore at Mayavaram dismissing O. S. No. 40 of 1921 on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid. The order rejecting the plaint could have been passed only under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P. C. The suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner, under the Hindu law, of one Ramaswami Ayyar and he claimed the property after the death of his widow and his daughters. The plaintiff is his daughter's son. The suit was filed on the last day allowed by the law of limitation. To some extent this fact seems to have prejudiced the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff. While we have no particular sympathy with a stale suit, I do not see any reason why one should be prejudiced against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaint was presented on 28 August 1920. It was returned by the office with four requisitions. The fourth is: Valuation has not been given in respect of all the properties described in the plaint schedules.

(2.) This was on the 30 August. The plaintiff's pleader re-presented the plainton 7th September with the note: Those mentioned in the lots have been amended. Re-presented after amendment.

(3.) It is now admitted that the first three requisitions have been satisfied, but it is urged for the respondents that the fourth was not. I will discuss this point later on. The office was, however, satisfied with the re-presentation and a note was made "Stamp correct; plaint may be filed". The plaint was then numbered and notices were issued to the defendants. In the written statement a plea was taken that the Court-fee paid is not correct. The Court-fee should have been paid in respect of the suit properties on their market value.