Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 272 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar vs S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar on 28 November, 1957

Deepak Kumar vs Dr. Komalchand on 25 August, 2015

3. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the suit has not been undervalued for purposes of Court fee. It is well settled that the question of Court fee must be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint and its decision can not be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits. [Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245, Sub-hash Chand v. M.P.E.B., 2000(4) M.P.H.T. 318 (FB) = 2000(3) MPLJ 522]. In the present case the averments in the plaint are that Jageshwar Prasad Mishra was the Bhumiswami of the lands in dispute and after his death he left behind his three heirs. The plaintiff No. 1 is widow of his son Dadoli and the plaintiff No. 2 is his daughter. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Malo is also his daughter. She is a totally disabled person. There has been no partition amongst the heirs of Jageshwar Prasad and therefore Smt. Malo could not sell the suit lands to the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Thus according to the plaint the plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale-deeds in question. It is not necessary for them to have the sale-deeds cancelled or set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhash Chand Jain vs The Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board ... on 26 September, 2000

Indeed, this might have happened due to the fact that the attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to the decision in Sathappa Chettier (supra) which was not even cited before the Division Bench, but it is not necessary for me to enter into the controversy as those 'observations' do not pinch the issue before me. Happily in the later division bench decision in Badrilal v. State (AIR 1964 Madh Pra 9) (supra) the Supreme Court decision was noted but it was merely held that although the plaintiff had liberty to put his own valuation under Section 7(iv)(c) of the C. F. Act the valuation should not be made arbitrarily.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Parekh Market Permises Co-Op. Society ... vs Padmanabh Builders And Ors. on 3 November, 1997

The question however is if the disclosure of valuation is in absolute discretion or option of the plaintiff or it can be objected to by the defendants and adjudicated upon by the Court, and if so in what cases. It was left open in Chettiar's case (supra). Provisions of Central and State Act have already been extracted earlier. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of Kerala Act amply safeguards the interest of revenue. Similar provisions exist in Central Act. But under Civil Procedure Code plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 if it is undervalued. How to reconcile the two provisions the one leaving it to absolute discretion of plaintiff to value the suit as he considers proper and the other to reject a plaint if it is undervalued. For this it is necessary to examine the scheme disclosed in the Civil Procedure Code relating to filing of suit. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code provided that any suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. What is a court of lowest grade and for what nature of suit has been determined and regulated by State enactments. Competency refers to jurisdiction territorial or pecuniary, of limited or unlimited limits.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Bijay Kumar Sahoo vs C.R. Dash on 10 May, 2011

"For the first, I read the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rathnavarmaharaju v. Smt. Vimla, 1961 Ker LT (SC) 67 : (AIR 1961 SC 1299) as meaning that no revision will lie at the instance of a defendant for the simple reason that the adequacy or otherwise of the court-fee paid is not a matter in which he is interested unless, as observed in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 S.C. 245 at page 251, the question of court-fee "involves also the question of jurisdiction of the court either to try the suit or entertain the appeal".
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prafulla Kumar Roy Chowdhury And Anr. vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 13 May, 2003

"It is settled law that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted. Reference can be made in this context to Smt. Tara Deviv. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, , Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, as well as Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, ."
Calcutta High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shakuntala Rani (Smt.) vs Sh. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) Through ... on 22 April, 1999

"The instant special leave petition has been filed against the said order. We have heard the learned counsel and in our considered opinion we do not find any merit in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. It is now well-settled by the decisions of this court in Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra) and Meenakshi sundaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar (supra) that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. The plaintiff has valued the lease hold interest on the basis of the rent. Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the courts below, is reasonable and the same is not demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate underestimation of the reliefs. We, therefore, do (not ?) find any reason to grant special leave to appeal asked for in the petition as the order passed in the said Revision is unexceptional. The special leave petition is therefore dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - K S Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next