Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Capt. Sukhjit Singh Mann – Appellant
Versus
Sukhmani Mann – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - CM-11504-CII-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Main case
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the trial court, whereby an application filed at the instance of petitioner-defendant No.1, seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for want of adequate court fee, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as joint possession and permanent injunction qua two properties marked by letters 'X' and 'Y' and detailed in the plaint. It would be relevant to mention here that the property marked as 'X' in the plaint is the agricultural land whereas the property marked as 'Y' is the residential house. The relevant portion from prayer clause made in the plaint as regards joint possession is reproduced hereunder for reference:-
'...and for joint possession of the plaintiff over 3/8th share of the suit property, mentioned at letters 'X' and 'Y' above along with defendants No. 4 and 5;..'.
3. Upon notice, petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC with a prayer for
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of court fee for a suit property should be in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the determination....
Ownership of the property is sufficient to show possession, and deficiency in court fees is not fatal to the maintainability of the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fee payable in a suit for declaration of joint ownership and consequential relief of possession, where the sale deeds ar....
Court fee for joint possession claims must be determined under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, considering the dominant relief sought.
Joint ownership implies possession, and deficiency in court fees does not obstruct suit maintainability as plaintiffs must be allowed to rectify any deficiencies.
In partition suits, if joint possession is claimed, fixed court fees are applicable unless a clear case of ouster is established, which necessitates ad valorem fees.
Non-executants seeking annulment of a deed without seeking possession are not liable to pay ad valorem Court fee.
In a suit for partition of joint family property, where the plaintiffs claim joint possession, a fixed Court fee of Rs.200.00 is payable under Sec 34(2) of APCF and SC Act.
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
