Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL
Devnarayan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Ramphool – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)
In view of conflicting judgments by different single benches of this Court, learned Single Judge referred the following question for authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench
2. Vide order dated 16.10.2019, on request of learned counsel for the parties, the questions to be answered in the present matter, were re-framed in the following terms:-
2. Whether in a suit for specific relief with the prayer for de
In suits for specific performance, court fees are payable only on the main relief when ancillary reliefs are sought, as per the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.
A plaintiff seeking rescission of an agreement to sell is required to pay ad valorem court fees based on the total sale consideration as per Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct payment of court fee in a suit must be determined in accordance with settled legal principles and the specific provisions of the C....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the distinction between the court fee payable for a suit for declaration of sale deed by a Plaintiff who is a party to the sale deed and a Plai....
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
A declaration of voidness suffices in court fee assessments if the plaintiff is not an executant of the deed, negating the need for cancellation or payment based on market value.
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
