Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. on 2 September, 2014 cites

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010

6. In the present case, though in form the suit is for declaration for declaring the subject document/agreement to sell as null and void, such a declaration is prayed for by a party to that document being the plaintiff. Accordingly since a party to a document is seeking his cancellation, therefore, as per the ratio in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh (supra) as given in para 7 of the judgment, the suit for cancellation of the C.R.P No.129/2014& conn. matters page 6 of 7 document will have to be as per the consideration as mentioned in the document. The respondent/plaintiff has admittedly fixed court fee as per the consideration mentioned in the document and the only error of the respondent/plaintiff is that he has called the suit as a suit for declaration to declare the document as null and void instead of the suit being titled as one for cancellation of the document/agreement to sell. However, it is settled law that the form/heading of the suit is not material and it is the substance which has to be seen, and when we see the substance, it is clear that the suit is for cancellation of the document/agreement to sell and suit has been correctly valued by paying the ad valorem court fee on the consideration as stated in the document. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the valuation of the suit as fixed by the plaintiff which is actually seeking a relief of cancellation of the document/agreement to sell though concluded in declaratory form.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 871 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1