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

1971 Supreme(All) 81

J.M.LAL
Mahabir Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Shamshuddin Ansari – Respondent


Advocates:
Kesari Bir Pd., for Applicant; S.M. Fakhruzzaman, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER : The only point that arises for decision in this revision is whether the suit out of which this revision has arisen falls under sub-section (xi) (e) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act as amended in its application to this State or under sub-section (v) (ii) of the said section. If the suit falls under the first provision, not only ad valorem court-fee would have to be paid according to the amount of one year's rent but its valuation for the purposes of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court would also be the same in view of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. That valuation would admittedly be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif in whose court this suit was filed. If on the other hand the suit falls under the latter provision, it will have to be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. The market value of the property in respect of which relief for possession has been prayed for has been determined by the trial court at Rs. 3150/- on the basis of the report of the commissioner who was appointed to determine the value. On that valuation the suit may go out from the pecu







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