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

2016 Supreme(Ker) 1421

Abdul Noushad – Appellant
Versus
Helen – Respondent


ORDER

V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. The suit in O.S. No. 74/2012 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam is one for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement for sale of the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as advance out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- to the defendant on the date of the agreement. The suit is essentially for specific performance to have the sale deed executed even though there is an alternative prayer for return of the amount paid as advance. The court below has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and also for the reason that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

2. The court fee was computed on the amount of the sale consideration as is warranted under Section 42(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (the 'Act' for short). The court fee payable in the Regular First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff shall be the same as that shown in the suit on the subject matter as per Section 52 of the Act. One-third of the court fee payable to the tune of Rs. 43,467/- was remitted at the time of admission of the Regular Fi








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