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

2003 Supreme(Kar) 1066

S.ABDUL NAZEER, S.THAKUR
J. M. NARAYANA – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE – Respondent


Advocates:
B.N.PRAKASH, G.PRASHANTH, K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, Shobha Patil, T.JAYAPRAKASH, T.S.AMAR KUMAR

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a Judgment and Decree passed by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 4164/1986, which happened to be a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession. One of the issues that the Trial Court framed on the basis of the pleadings before it related to the sufficiency of the Court Fee paid on the plaint filed by the appellant. While dismissing the suit on merits, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient and that the plaintiff is liable to pay the same on the market value of the suit property, which value was held to be at Rs. 65/- per sq. ft.

( 2 ) IN the present appeal filed against the said Judgment and Decree, the Office has raised two folded objections. The first objection relates to the non-filing of the certified copy of the decree sheet of the Trial Court, while the second objection relates to the non-payment of Court fee on the Memo of appeal.

( 3 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mr. Kumar argued that the Trial Court had declined to draw up a Decree till such time the appellant deposited the deficit Court fee before it. The










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