Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Jagdish Kaur vs Arvinder Pal Singh And Others on 23 August, 2011 cites

Niranjan Kaur vs Nirbigan Kaur on 4 June, 1981

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that she has also challenged the general power of attorney on the basis of which respondent-defendant No.1 has executed sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 and hence, it is contended that she is not required to pay advalorem court fee. He has also placed reliance upon 1981 PLJ p.423, Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, Ram Singh v. Labh Singh, 2006(1) RCR(Civil) Page 209 and Ishwar v. Smt. Om Pati, 2006(2) CCC page 4.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

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

Law on the point has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564, in which it has been specifically held that in case where plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the sale deed is null and void being party to the sale deed, he is required to pay advalorem court fee as per consideration of the sale deed. The relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 871 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Risaldar Ram Singh vs Labh Singh And Ors. on 16 September, 1953

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that she has also challenged the general power of attorney on the basis of which respondent-defendant No.1 has executed sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 and hence, it is contended that she is not required to pay advalorem court fee. He has also placed reliance upon 1981 PLJ p.423, Niranjan Kaur v. Nirbigan Kaur, Ram Singh v. Labh Singh, 2006(1) RCR(Civil) Page 209 and Ishwar v. Smt. Om Pati, 2006(2) CCC page 4.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1