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

DELHI HIGH COURT
ANIL KUMAR
Sudershan Kumar Seth – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Seth – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

The defendant No. 1/applicant in a suit for partition filed by his brother against him and his sisters, without filing the written statement, filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.

2. The defendant/applicant has sought rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has paid a fixed Court fees of Rs. 20.00 only though the case of the plaintiff is that he is not in possession of the properties to be partitioned and he is claiming possession as a co-owner and thus in view of settled proposition of law, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem Court fees on his alleged 1/6th share in the properties. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at rupees four crores. It is prayed by the defendant No. 1 that if the plaintiff fails to pay Court fees on his 1/6th share the plaint be rejected.

3. The opposition to the application of the defendant by the plaintiff is that the application is mala fide and designed to delay the progress of the suit. It was contended by the plaintiff that the settled principle of law is that the plaint

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