Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Dharinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Anoopjot Kaur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the dismissal of the application for rejection of plaint leads to further examination of court fee adequacy. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability and the need for court fees for joint possession. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion surrounding the implications of joint possession claims on court fee obligations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial reasoning on the grounds for the revision petition's decision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. final determination on court fees and setting aside of the prior order. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), filed by the petitioners-defendants No.2 to 4, for rejection of plaint was dismissed.
2. A suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction was filed by respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against the petitioners-defendants No.2 to 4 and proforma respondent No.4-defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 't
Court fee for joint possession claims must be determined under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, considering the dominant relief sought.
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....
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....
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a civil suit seeking joint possession, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act,....
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
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
