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

2015 Supreme(All) 584

KRISHNA MURARI, PRATYUSH KUMAR
MAHRAB – Appellant
Versus
HULLAN KHAN – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
R.C. Pal for the Appellants.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The suit seeks to declare a sale-deed void and obtain prohibitory injunction to protect possession and rights [25000759900003]. - The court discusses whether ad valorem Court fees apply under Section 7 iv-A and related provisions versus Article 17 Schedule II, including reliance on Shefali Roy and Shailendra Bhardwaj principles (!) (!) (!) . - It is held that for voidable sale-deed, declaration to adjudge void is necessary to effectively relief and protect rights; mere declaration plus injunction has to consider proper fee under UP Amendment Act; appellants’ appeal is dismissed in limine [25000759900019][25000759900020]. - The judgment references prior cases on Court-fee computation for declarations and related relief (!) (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether a sale-deed is voidable and requires cancellation or declaration to be void?

What is the applicable Court Fees Act provision for a suit seeking declaration and injunction where a sale-deed is alleged void?

What is the proper relief required to be sought to protect rights when a sale-deed is alleged voidable in a suit by bhumidhar holders?


JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri R.C. Pal, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The present appeal, filed under Section 6 A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2015, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Aligarh in Original Suit No. 1775 of 2013 (Mehrab and another v. Hullan Khan and others), whereby the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as the ‘appellants’), have been directed to pay ad-valorem Court fees.

3. On behalf of the appellants, validity of the impugned judgment and order have been challenged on the ground inter alia that the Court below has misread the plaint illegally and relied on the case law not applicable to the facts of the present case. The suit has been properly valued and Court fees have been paid accordingly. Thus, the impugned judgment and order are illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. The said original suit was filed by the appellants on the allegation that they were transferable bhumidhar, owner in possession of the property in dispute, details whereof have been given at the foot of the plaint and used by the appellants for the residential purposes. The appella









































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