S.S.JHA, SANJAY YADAV
Vijay Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Madanlal Goyal – Respondent
Jha, J. -- 1. This appeal is filed against the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII rule 11, CPC by the trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(i) Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that suit properties are the properties of Joint Hindu Family. The properties are situated at Gwalior and Surat in the State of Gujarat. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.4lacs. Plaintiff has sought further relief that he should not be dispossessed from the suit properties as he is a coparcener and is entitled for declaration that he has 1/3rd share in the properties of Joint Hindu Family.
(ii) Defendant filed an application under Order VII rule 11, CPC that suit is undervalued in order to avoid the payment of advolarem Court fee on the valuation of the suit. Plaintiff is seeking partition in the garb of declaration. Suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief of partition is not maintainable. Suit as filed is not maintainable.
(iii) Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that suit for declaration alone without seeking further relief for partition is not maintainable. Suit for injunction ag
1. Pyarelal v. Nandlal = [1982 MPWN 27]
2. Diwan Singh v. Bhaiya Lal = [1997(2) JLJ 167
3. Wealth Tax v. Chandra Sen = [AIR 1986 SC 1753]
4. Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar = [AIR 1987 SC 558]
6. Raj Rani v. Chief Settlement Commissioner
7. Gurupad v. Hirabai = [AIR 1978 SC 1239]
9. Sher Singh v. Gamdoor Singh = [(1997)2 SCC 485]
10. Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian = [AIR 1976 SC 2433]
11. Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde v. Chhabubal Balwantrao Shinde = [(2003) 1 SCC 212]
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.