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

2009 Supreme(P&H) 1237

A.N.JINDAL
Harmail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurmail Singh – Respondent


Judgment

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendant-respondent for paying ad-valorem court fee over the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been accepted and the plaintiff was ordered to pay ad-valorem court fee.

2. To decide the question of court fee, it would be essential to reproduce the claim set up by the plaintiff in his suit.

3. The plaintiff has sought cancellation of the sale deed No.590 dated 24.5.2004 executed by the defendants No.3 and 4 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 for sale of the land measuring 82 kanals 11 marlas saying that the same are illegal, null and void, in operative and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff. Similarly, he has also claimed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of one plot measuring 29 x 72 as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, on the ground that the sale deed qua the said house is illgal, null and void. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff or demolishing any part of the house has also been sought.

4. The plaintiff claimed the suit property to be joint Hindu





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