Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Mrs Tasnemunisa W/O Abu Mohammed Hunnal ... vs Shri Danish S/O Dadasab Badami on 8 December, 2023 cites

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

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the suit of the plaintiff is for declaration, possession and injunction, the sale deed is of the year 2004 and the valuation of the suit property in the sale deed is Rs.4,70,000/-. However, as per Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, the plaintiff ought to have valued the -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 suit property as per its actual market value as on the date of the suit. Learned counsel would contend that the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, inspite agreeing that the value of the suit property was more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel would contend that the trial Court has misread the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH & ORS1 and has failed to consider that in the said decision, it expressly states that non-executant, not in a possession and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an advalorem Court fee on the market value. Learned counsel would contend that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the valuation made by the plaintiff on the suit property at Rs.4,70,000/- is as per the sale consideration is proper, is unjustifiable and liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 871 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1