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

2007 Supreme(Ker) 215

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Ananthakrishnan – Respondent


Judgment :-

What is the proper court fee payable in a suit for recovery of possession instituted against the alleged tenants pursuant to finding by the Rent Control Court under the Proviso to Section 11 (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act that the denial of the landlord's title by the alleged tenants is bona fide is the question which arises in this writ petition under Article 227.

2. Ext.P-1 is copy of the plaint filed by the petitioners and one of the facts mentioned as constituting cause of action for the suit is the dismissal of rent control petition, which had been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants on finding that the defendants' denial of the plaintiffs' title is bona fide. The prayer in the suit is to allow the plaintiffs to recover the suit schedule building, holding that the grounds envisaged by Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are established. The above prayer has been valued under Section 43(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It was contended by the defendants inter alia that the valuation of the suit is improper and the court fee paid is insufficient. They reiterated their







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