SRIVASTAVA
Kanahia Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan – Respondent
2. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the suit was undervalued and the court-fee paid was insufficient. They contended that the suit was a simple suit for possession against persons who were not admitted to be tenants. The plaintiffs were therefore bound to value the suit at the market value of the property under S. 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act. If they valued the suit at that figure it would be found that the court-fee paid was insufficient and the suit was not triable by the Court in which it had been filed.
3. The Munsif who was dealing with the suit did not accept the contention of the defendants and held that the plaintiffs had correctly valued the suit under S.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.