Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Narbada vs Smt. Aashi on 21 February, 1986

Mohkam Chand Dasot And Anr. vs Addl. Distt. And Sessions Judge No. 3 on 17 January, 2006

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Narbada v. Smt. Aashi wherein this Court had held that in a suit for cancellation of document relating to proper court fee, computation of court fee is decided on the basis of market value of the property to which the document relates. He also referred to the Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show that the procedure as stipulated under Order 18 as to how the Court ought to have proceed with the suit in question and after referring to the aforesaid judgments and the provisions of law, he prayed that the learned Court below has seriously erred in not deciding the suit value finally and only allowed the plaintiff-respondents to deposit the Court fee considering the value of the suit-as Rs. 7 lakhs whereas, from as per the mandatory law, the learned court below ought to have decide this question first prior to hearing the suit on merit.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Imortal Infrastructure Pvt vs Lookwell Life Space Pvt And Ors on 8 December, 2011

10. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Hari Menon (AIR 1982 Ker 35), the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada Vs. Aashi (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162) held that in a suit for cancellation of decree, the court fee is required to be paid on the market value of the property but the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sathee Devi (supra) that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada (supra) does not lay down the correct law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ammini vs Unknown

Going by the decision in Satheedevi 's case (supra), it is seen that the Apex Court had overruled Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy [1972 KLT 774], P.K.Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon [1981 KLT 763], Pachayammal v. Dwaraswamy Pillai [2006 (3) KLT 527], Appikunju Meerasayu v. Meeran Pillai [1964 KLT 895], Uma Antherjanam v. Govindaru Namboodiripad and Others [1966 KLT 1046] and Smt.Narbada v. Smt.Aashi [AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162]. In the above decision, the Apex Court held that for cancellation of decrees, documents, sale deed etc. the court fee payable is the value shown in the document and not the market value of the property. Therefore it can be concluded that the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the suit is correct and the courts below went wrong by finding that the court fee paid is insufficient. Thus, the suit is maintainable before the trial court also. Thus, the substantial question of law framed in this Appeal is SA.102/02 :6:
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Harilal - Full Document
1