Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Neeraj Sehgal Through Attorney Holder Jk Puri – Appellant
Versus
Puja Arora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virinder Aggarwal, J. (Oral)
1. The instant civil revision petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner to impugn the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold, has been declined.
2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, asserting himself to be a co-owner, in equal share with defendant No.1, of the house in dispute, and further claiming joint possession thereof on the strength of a registered Will dated 24.03.2022. He also sought recognition of his entitlement to an equal share in the savings bank accounts and deposits standing in the name of late Major P.N. Sehgal (deceased) or in the name of his daughter, thereby asserting his right to succeed to the immovable properties fully detailed and described in the plaint. Additionally, a decree of mandatory injunction was prayed for, directing defendant No.7 to effect transfer of 50% share of the said house jointly
Court fee for joint possession claims must be determined under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, considering the dominant relief sought.
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.
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....
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
The authority of a GPA holder must comprehensively cover all properties involved in a suit, and insufficient court fee constitutes a curable defect.
The legal principle established is that in the case of co-owners, possession of one is possession of all unless ouster or exclusion is proved, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to be in actua....
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....
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
