SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(Kar) 269

HONNAIH
T. GANGADHARASWAMY – Appellant
Versus
SETH DOWLATRAM MOHANDAS – Respondent


Advocates:
PRANESH RAO, R.J.SUNDER KUMAR, V.K.GOTVINDARAJULU, VENKATACHALAPATHY

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question of Court fee.

( 2 ) A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of the same. The plaintiff mesa the suit- out or which was petition , for spection perror inance or properties to the plaintiff for aconciderationof Rs. 35000 by an arengment between thendefendent 1conveveda. item 1 and 3 in flawer or the plaintiff and item 4 in flaver of his mother and field to onvey the other item nemely item 2 the paintiff brought the shout for speine performence of the agrement between him and first defendent and sought the reffer or convenence of the second item. He paid court fee on Rs. 4000 on the basis that the reperesented the amount due by him to deferent.

( 3 ) MR. V. K. Govindarajulu, the; learned Counsel for the plaintiff says that conveyance is sought only in respect of the second item of the properties mentioned in the agreement and he is therefore not bound to pay Court Fee, leviable, on a claim for specific performance of the agreement. His argument is that as the entire: contract is not sought to be performed, the; suit cannot be deemed to be one for specific performance of 'the whole contract but only for performance of conveyance of t




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top