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

2015 Supreme(P&H) 1852

KULDIP SINGH
Dharamdutt @ Harpal – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Kulbushan Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral):- Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 3.7.2015 (Annexure P3), passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewari, vide which in an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff was directed to pay the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the suit property.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

3. Plaintiff in this case has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the release deed dated 20.1.2014 executed by him in favour of his daughter Geet Devi defendant on the ground of fraud. No relief of possession has been sought. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed for directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the market value of the land which was allowed. The lower Court has relied upon Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fee Act 1870 (for short, ‘ the act’) to hold that the ad valorem court fee on the market value of the said property is to be paid. It is not denying fact that an amendment has been made in Section 7 of the Act by the Haryana State. Section 7(4) (c) of the Act pert











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