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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
K.Rathinaswamy – Appellant
Versus
O.S.Jerry – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Rajasekar

Table of Content
1. facts about the civil suit and appeal for valuation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding court fee and jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. interpretation of section 12(2) of the court fees act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12)
4. error in trial court's reliance on case precedents. (Para 10 , 13 , 14)
5. conclusion to set aside trial court's order. (Para 15)

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The 1st defendant in a civil suit in O.S.No.27 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, has preferred the revision, aggrieved by the order of the District Munsif, Coonoor, Nilgiris, in his application seeking to relegate an enquiry in order to determine the valuation of the subject matter and the propriety of the Court Fees paid thereon.

2. The 1st respondent as plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession as well as consequential permanent injunction. In the said suit, the 1st defendant took out an application under Section 12 (2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 r/w Section 151 of CPC to conduct an enquiry and to determine the valuation of the suit

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