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

2002 Supreme(Ker) 300

A.LEKSHMIKUTTY
Abdul Razack – Appellant
Versus
Anjaneyan – Respondent


Judgment :-

A. Lekshmikutty, J.

Against the order regarding the additional issue No. 3 in O.S. No. 2 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, this revision is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of 1/7th share over the plaint schedule property. An additional issue was raised regarding court fee. The plaintiff paid court fee under S.37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court below found that the plaintiff has no joint possession over the plaint schedule property and therefore, the court fee paid under S.37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not correct. challenging the said order, this revision petition is filed.

2. The only point to be considered is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The petitioner filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share over the plaint schedule property with mesne profits and for consequential reliefs. As per the plaintiff, he has purchased 1/7th right over the plaint schedule property from the 8th defendant who got it from the first defendant by auction sale in pursuance of the decree passed in O. S. No. 254 of 1984. The plaintiff along

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