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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1693

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Manju Devi (Smt. ) – Appellant
Versus
Manisha (Smt. ) – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Sudhir Rana, Mr. S.S. Khurana, Mr. Gulshan Nandwani

Judgment

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The trial court has directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee on the amount of sale consideration of the sale deed dated 05.07.2017, as she is one of the executants of the sale deed and she has challenged the correctness thereof.

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the plaintiff has alleged fraud and therefore, no court fee is payable. He further submits that the plaintiff alongwith certain other persons have executed a joint sale deed and the sale deed qua the plaintiff is only with respect to 4 kanals and 1 ½ marlas land and therefore, she can be asked to pay the proportionate ad valorem court fee.

3. In Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others : (2010) 12 SCC 112 the Court held that the executant is required to pay the ad valorem court fee if the annulment of the instrument including the sale deed is sought in the suit.

4. Similarly, a Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur vs. Nirbigan Kaur 1982 PLR 127 has drawn a distinction between the suits filed under Section 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In fact, the executant of the sale deed is required to seek the annulment of the same.

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