H. P. SANDESH
G. S. Mahendra, S/o Late M. Siddiah – Appellant
Versus
Komala, W/o Srinivasa – Respondent
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.439/2022.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendants have obtained the document of release deed by misrepresentation and fraud. Hence, sought for the relief of cancellation of registered release deed dated 01.07.2019 as well as other reliefs.
3. The defendants appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action, Court fee paid is insufficient and plaint being not verified and not filed in accordance with law. In support of this application, an affidavit is sworn to by defendant No.1 contending that the plaintiff is his younger sister who is currently in Bengaluru and no proper verification of the plaint since it reflects that she has signed the plaint in Australia but it is filed at Bengaluru and verifying affidavit is also deposed at Australia and not at Bengaluru which is irregular, illegal and not in accordance with law. It is also further sworn to that since sh
C S Ramaswamy Vs V K Senthil And Others
Canara Bank, Ancard Division, Bangalore Vs Girija Prasad Gupta
H D Vashishta Vs M/S Glaxo Laboratories (I) (P) Ltd.
Jaware Gowda And Another Vs Basavaraju N J And Others
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs Venkatachalam Chettiar
P K Palanisamy Vs N Arumugham And Another
Polamrasetti Manikyam And Another Vs Teegala Venkata Ramayya And Another
Satheedevi Vs Prasanna And Another
Sri Jaware Gowda And Another Vs Sri Basavaraju N J And Others
Swamy Atmananda And Others Vs Ramakrishna Tapovanam And Others
Section 38 will not attract when consideration is not shown in document which is in question.
The plaint must disclose a cause of action, and the permissibility of oral averments contradicting a written document depends on the applicability of relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
The plaintiff must seek cancellation of Sale Deeds before claiming they are non-binding, with appropriate court fees payable based on genuine property valuations.
Court fees are mandatory for suits involving declarations of void instruments, and the issue of court fees must be resolved before addressing other issues.
A defendant's fraudulent inducement on a contractual obligation supports a plaintiff's claim for cancellation of a sale deed and necessitates a full trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.