Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.39 seconds)Section 24 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Bijoy Gopal Mukerji vs Srimati Krishna Mahishi on 7 February, 1907
12. The learned counsel for the respective parties reiterated
the stand taken by them in the Court below. In addition, the counsel
for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners are not eo
nominee parties to the 107 documents in respect of which declaratory
relief was sought by them in the plaint, they are not bound to sue for a
declaration or for cancellation of each of them and such a prayer even
if it is there, needs to be ignored and Court Fee need not be paid
thereon. He relied upon Bijoy Gopala Mukerji Vs. Krishna
Mahishi Debi , Ramaswami Ayyangar Vs. Rangachariar and
Mohd. Ikramuddin Vs. Sangram Bosle and others . He further
contended that the view taken by the Court below that the petitioners
should pay Court Fee on the basis of market value of the suit schedule
property in respect of the relief of declaration sought by the
petitioners, is contrary to law, and that the Court below is not correct
in concluding that the petitioners are in fact seeking a declaration in
respect of the suit schedule land. He also disputed the finding of the
Court below that the relief of injunction sought for by the petitioners,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a main relief but only
a consequential/ancillary relief.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satheedevi vs Prasanna & Anr on 7 May, 2010
The Supreme Court followed its decision in Sathee
Devi (14 supra) while interpreting Section 37 of the Act and held that
the term value of property mentioned in the said provision does not
mean market value of the property and that court fee has to be
calculated on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale
deed/conveyance.
Polamrasetti Manikyam & Anr vs Teegala Venkata Ramayya & Anr on 19 February, 2014
30. Though a Full Bench of this Court in Lakshminagar
Housing Welfare Association (13 supra) took the view following the
Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Kolachala
Kutumba Sastri (12 supra) that the court fee should be computed, in
a suit for cancellation of a deed of conveyance, on the market value of
the property which is subject matter of the said deed, the said decision
was over-ruled in Polamarasetti Manikyam (15 supra) by the
Supreme Court.
Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh vs Paras Nath Singh & Ors on 22 November, 2001
In Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh
and others , the Supreme Court held that, the decision on court fee
can normally only be based on the plaint as framed and not on the
plaint as it ought to have been framed, that, in certain circumstances
the Court can however come to the conclusion that the drafting of the
plaint was such that the plaintiff is attempting to evade payment of
correct court fee or that there is a provision of law requiring the
plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than
the one adopted by the plaintiff. It held that a court is enjoined to
begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court
fees payable on the plaint, that the averments made therein by the
plaintiff are correct and that this did not preclude the court from
interfering if there is an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having
no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of
court fee, or given for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some
court which it did not have, or depriving the court of jurisdiction
which it would otherwise have. It is the substance of the relief sought
for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and
payment of court fee. The defence taken in the written statement may
not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of court fee
by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is ultimately found to have omitted to
seek an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for, and without
which the relief sought for in the plaint as framed and filed cannot be
allowed to him, the plaintiff shall have to suffer the dismissal of the
suit.
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010
27. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are not
parties to the 107 documents which they seek to be declared as null
and void and not binding on them. Therefore, in view of the above
decision, it cannot be said that they are bound to seek relief of
cancellation of the 107 documents and compute court fee on the
market value of the land comprised therein.
Mahadeo Prasad Singh & Anr vs Ram Lochan & Ors on 16 September, 1980
33. A Full bench of this Court in Employees Association v.
Sri Chennakesava Swami temple , reiterated the principle that if a
sale is void, there is no necessity to seek cancellation of it, following
Mahadeo Prasad Singh (18 supra).
T.P. Petherpermal Chetty vs R. Muniandy Servai on 18 March, 1908
In support of the contention that the plaintiffs could have even
filed a simple suit for recovery of possession of the suit land without
seeking cancellation of the sale deed which was null and void under
Section 74 of the Act, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents
have relied on the decision of the Privy Council in T.P. Petherpermal
Chetty v. R. Muniandi Servai and Ors. , , the relevant portion of
which is as follows: