Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S. SARWAR ALI, J.
Mostt. Sohagwati Devi & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Mostt. Lakhpatia Devi & Others - Opp. Party
C.R. No. 352 of 1973
Decided on: 13th February, 1975
Court Fee - Disputed Property - The court held that the distinction between a deed which has to be avoided and a deed which is void or of no legal consequence is applicable in this case, and set aside the order directing payment of ad valorem court fee.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title and possession in respect of the disputed property, challenging the court's view on ad valorem court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the distinction between a deed which has to be avoided and a deed which is void or of no legal consequence is applicable in this case, and set aside the order directing payment of ad valorem court fee.
Issues: The main issue was the payment of ad valorem court fee in the suit for declaration of title and possession of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the distinction between a deed which has to be avoided and a deed which is void or of no legal consequence, and concluded that the payment of ad valorem court fee was not required.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and set aside the order directing payment of ad valorem court fee.
1. The plaintiffs who are the petitioners in this case filed a suit for declaration of their title and possession in respect of the disputed property. It was stated in the plaint that one Most. Lakhpatia Devi who had no interest in the disputed property had executed a sale deed and that the same was not binding on the plaintiffs. The court below took the view that ad valorem court-fee would be payable. The petitioners challenge that ORDER :in revision.
2. The claim of the plaintiffs, whether right or wrong is that the plaintiffs have title over the suit property and that they are in possession of the same. They do not seek for cancellation of the deed. They say that so far as they are Concerned, it is of no legal effect or consequence. In this situation, the distinction brought about in (1) Ramautar Sao V. Ram Gobind Sao (A.I.R. 1942 Patna, 60) is clearly applicable between a deed which has to be avoided as opposed to a deed which is void or of no legal consequence so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. In this view of the matter, the ORDER :of the court below directing payment of ad valorem court fee is set aside. There will be no ORDER :as to costs
Application allowed.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
