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

1987 Supreme(Bom) 407

V.A.MOHTA
Madhukar S/o Abaji Kalbande & others – Appellant
Versus
Mangalchand S/o Mannalal Agrawal & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---This revision arises out of an order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal, directing the applicants (plaintiffs) to pay Court-fee as per section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (the Act). Plaintiffs had paid Court-fee of Rs. 30/- under section 6(iv)(j) of the Act.

2. In order to ascertain which of the two provisions are attracted, it is necessary to set out what in substance is the claim made: The plaintiffs are tenants of a block in a Chawl in Peshve plot, Yavatmal. The property was taken on lease from Dongaonkars who executed a sale-deed dated 28-12-1981, in favour of non applicants Nos. 2 to 4 (defendants Nos. 2 to 4). The house is let out for residential purposes and is governed by the local Rent Control Order, Non-applicant No. 1 (defendant No. 1) was serving as a Civil Surgeon, Yavatmal. He was staying in a Government Bungalow. Defendant No. 2 is his wife, defendant No. 3 is his son and defendant No. 4 is his brother-in-law. The property is in fact purchased by defendant No. 1 but Sale-deed has been taken benami in the name of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 solely with 3 view to make out a case before the Rent Controller f













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