Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN
Gurinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Satnam Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J.
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a suit for declaration with joint possession and permanent injunction as consequential relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the suit it was averred that the defendant-petitioner herein had got a mutation sanctioned in his name on the basis of a family transfer dated 18.05.2016 alleged to have been executed by his father - Lal Singh. The transfer deed was challenged as being null and void, illegal, inoperative, ineffective and non-est qua the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4 and proforma respondent Nos.5 to 8. It was further claimed that the property is ancestral in nature and Lal Singh was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the property was transferred to the defendant-petitioner herein without any legal neces
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....
A non-executant plaintiff seeking declaration and possession must pay court fees under Sections 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, not based on the transfer deed's market value.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of ad valorem Court fee for challenging a transfer deed, which is determined based on the consideration shown in the deed and the p....
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.
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....
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 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,....
Plaintiffs, as executants of sale deeds, are required to seek cancellation of the deeds and affix ad-valorem court-fee as per the sale consideration mentioned in the deeds, even when seeking a declar....
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
