Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 248 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Shamsher Singh vs Rajinder Prashad & Ors on 3 August, 1973

Shanya Developers & Realtors (P) Ltd vs George on 4 October, 2010

5. Back to the facts of the present case. True that declaration prayed for is as regards as validity and binding nature of the agreements in question and, prima facie, it could be said that what petitioner claims is only a declaration as against the stand of respondents in the notice issued to the WP(C) No.31604/2009 7 petitioner that the agreements remain in force and are valid. But, in deciding the provisions of law under which court fee is payable as Supreme Court held in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others one cannot have a mere look at the relief alone. Instead entire averments in the plaint as also the relevant documents are to be considered. Properties which are the subject matter of the agreements in question have been scheduled in Ext.P1, plaint. It is not disputed and, it is revealed from the agreements that in terms of the agreement once the construction is completed by the petitioner it gets the right to sell 50% of the undivided share in each of the scheduled items 1 to 3 at a price mutually agreed upon to by the promoters with the prospective buyers and the balance 50% of the undivided share in the land along with super built up area of the apartments goes to the respondents. When building is constructed it forms part of immovable property as something embedded in the land. Hence as per the agreement petitioner gets right over immovable property. Enforcement of the agreements therefore means that the right of petitioner to proceed with construction of the building and sell 50% of the undivided share of each of the scheduled items is declared. That declaration has reference to immovable property. In that view of the matter court fee payable is not under Section25(d)(i) or (ii) but, under Section 25(b) of the Act. Learned Sub Judge was wrong in holding that petitioner is liable to pay court fee under Section WP(C) No.31604/2009 8 25(d)(i) of the Act. Instead it should have been found that the petitioner is liable to pay court fee under Section 25(b) of the Act on half of market value of the properties.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Smt. Veena Bahl (Deceased) And Ors. vs Vishnu Kumar And Ors. on 16 August, 2005

3A. Section 7(iv)(a) refers to a prayer for a declaratory decree and consequential relief. Where the plaintiff wants to claim an injunction which is a consequence of declaration or where without declaration of right or status the Injunction cannot be granted, Section 7(iv)(a) would apply with full force. Section 7(iv)(d) relates to the relief of the injunction. Article 17 of Schedule II of Court-Fees Act refers to certain suits wherein the fixed court-fee is to be paid. It relates to such reliefs where the plaintiff seeks to obtain declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed. Section 7(iv)(c) and Article 17 of Schedule II read together lead to only irresistible conclusions that if no consequential relief is prayed for Section 7(iv)(c) would not be applicable and plaintiff is not liable to pay the court-fees on the market value of the property as a simple declaration would be sufficient. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad , has observed as under :
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - R K Rastogi - Full Document

Ravindra Narayan Rajarshi And Ors vs Smt. Rohini Ganpatrao Heblikar And Anr on 31 July, 2017

At the time of deciding the case in Chandrika (supra), the ratio laid down in the case of Suhrid Singh (supra) was not considered by the learned single Judge of this Court. The case in hand is for the specific performance and accordingly, the plaintiff has paid ad-valorem Court fees and therefore, the consequential relief of declaration that subsequent sale deed is void and not binding on him is not susceptible to monetary consideration and it is rightly valued u/s Page 18 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:32 ::: cra.339.2016-J.doc 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The learned Judge of the trial Court has taken a correct view.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - M Bhatkar - Full Document

T.S. Sridharan vs M.F. Simon on 23 February, 2005

"It is settled law that the Court, in deciding the question of Court fee, should look into the allegations in the plaint to see as to what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. The Courts have to be, not only vigilant and read between the lines with a view to arrest the tendency of the litigant to under-value the reliefs, and to pay the minimum Court fee and to obtain the substantial relief, but also ensure the State does not lose revenue. This principle has been emphasised by the Supreme Court reported in (Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prasad and others) AIR 1973 SC 2384.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

K.Palaniswamy vs S.B.Subramani on 14 December, 2006

11. The case relied on by the petitioner in Shamesher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, 1973 (2) SCC 524 was a case in which the third respondent executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant of the property of which he claimed to be the sole owner. The appellant filed a suit on the basis of this mortgage and obtained a decree. When he tried to take out an execution proceedings for the sale of the mortgaged property, the two sons of the third respondent (respondents 1 and 2) filed a suit for declaration that the mortgage executed by their father in favour of the appellant was null and void and ineffectual as against them as the property was a Joint Hindu Family property and the mortgage had been effected without consideration and family necessity. On this plaint, the plaintiffs paid a fixed court fee of Rs.19.50 and the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was given as Rs.16,000/-. A preliminary objection having been raised by the appellant that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the Subordinate Judge held that although the case was covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the proviso to that section applied and directed the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the value of Rs.16,000/-. The Court fee not having been paid the plaint was rejected. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before this Court was allowed. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. Such an order amounts to a decree under section 2(2) and there was a right of appeal open to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, a second appeal would lie under section 100 of the CPC on the ground that the decision of the first appellate Court on the interpretation of section 7(iv)(c) is a question of law. While holding so, the Supreme Court further held that the Court fee payable on the plaint is certainly to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the plaintiff's suit will have to fail for failure to ask for consequential relief is of no concern to the Court at that stage in deciding the question of substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. This judgment is totally inapplicable to the facts of the presence case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Maharani Bagh Residents Welfare ... vs . Mcd on 17 August, 2009

In the present case the provisions which are attracted are of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act and the relief for the purposes of valuation of the suit must also correspond to the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction. In so far as the provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is concerned, if it is necessary to seek a declaration before being entitled to consequential relief which in the present case is of injunction, the valuation would be difference to those cases where only injunction simplicitor is prayed for. It has been held by own own High Court in the case of Mahant Purushottam Dass and Ors. Vs. Har Narain & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 SC 2384 following the judgment of the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad & Ors. (Supra), held that where the relief of injunction prayed for by the plaintiff should be considered as a consequential to the main relief or not has to be decided on the basis of allegations and the prayers contained in the plaint and mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to impede the court from looking at the substance of the relief asked for. The present suit in fact being a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction ad­valorem court fees is required to be affixed and since in the present case the plaintiff has in fact seeking a number of declaration which he has cleverly avoided to mention in his prayer clauses, he would be required to affix the court fees on each declaration so sought without which the consequential relief of injunction cannot be granted.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next