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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2506

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
T.Shaju Kumar – Appellant
Versus
C.Lakshmi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Mr.K.N.Thambi

ORDER :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

2.The revision petitioners filed unnumbered suit before the learned Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The court below declined to number the suit for the reason that the court fee has not been properly computed. Challenging the return made by the court below, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.It is seen that the petitioners have assessed the market value of the property based on the valuation set out in the suit sale deeds. The sale deeds are of the year 2007. The court below entertained a doubt whether the valuation that obtained in the year 2007 would represent the current market value of the suit property. In that view of the matter, the impugned return came to be made.

4.The relevant provision is Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. It reads as follows:-

7.Determination of market-value.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market-value of any property, such value shall de determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.

Explanation – For the purpose of thi

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