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

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1055

MRIDULA BHATKAR
Ravindra Narayan Rajarshi – Appellant
Versus
Rohini Ganpatrao Heblikar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. S.S. Kanetkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.B. Avhad.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

1. In all these Civil Revision Applications, the order dated 26.3.2015 passed by the 16th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, is challenged. The issue pertains to payment of Court fees under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs i.e. the respondents, have filed respective suits for specific performance, declaration and injunction. The land is owned by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and the original defendant Nos. 5 to 16 have given consent for the same. So, different agreements were executed with original plaintiffs i.e. the respondents on 12.4.1991 and thereafter as the original defendants, the original landlords, did not act pursuant to the agreement, so the first purchasers i.e. the original plaintiffs, filed suits for specific performance. The original plaintiffs had knowledge that on 3.3.2005, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had entered into agreement with defendant No. 17 in respect of the sale of the said lands. Further, the sale deed dated 3.5.2007 was executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 7 and defendant Nos. 19 to 36. Therefore, during pendency of the suit, subsequently, defendant Nos. 19 to 36 were added as party de





























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